Well, I'm sure he meant "do this right in favour of the money grubbing corporations". There's no way to do it right for customers, but for greedy bastards who want to own everything, I'm sure there's lots of "right" ways to do it. :p
Sweet dreams are made of this Who am I to disagree? I travel the world And the seven seas, (Everybody's looking for something.) Some of them want to use u some of them want to get used by u some of them want to abuse u some of them want to be abused.
I don't engage in social media, and I don't play social oriented games. So no, you are wrong Andrew Asshole. On another note, I'm done buying AAA games. Unless Bethesda cleans up it's act, I'm done with all of them, forever.
Would love to see a scripted reality series "The adventures of Bobby Narkotick and Android Wilson". Wait, such a series would just be called True Lies. Screw these guys.
Got to admire your faith in EA. I really doubt they will throw Wilson out over any of those news. The only reason I see for them to remove him would be eating a shareholder alive and even that is a maybe. Either that or shares dropping and him being the only person left to lay off.
@@Saviliana Then invest in ebay 2ndhand console games, dosbox and emulators, those are dirty cheap and games from those golden eras are largely free of this bullshit. take jrpg as example, most of them (fire emblem/chrono ) series easily eats 60 hours of play time. Get all of those plus less known dosbox rpg titles such as albion(1996) and stonekeep series. Assume your hardware is properly maintained, you can easily outlast greedy corporate fatcats.
He needed that time to observer human behavior when interacting to analyze and put in proper recognition patterns., still hasn't managed it completely though to pass as non mechanical human..
“People play single-player games because they want social interaction!” He’s a genius! Somebody give this man a medal! And then fire him! And then take the medal back from his unemployed hands!
I think he means people want things that they can talk to other people about instead of... you know, enjoying a really good story or just having fun on your own. And even then he seems to be ignoring the fact that when you talk to other people about good games, it's usually to recommend to other people so they can then also have fun on their own. It's almost like a CEO with no concept of regular human thought doesn't understand video games or normal social interaction for that matter.
He killed C&C, after Riccitiello's resignation and Wilson taking the CEO sit EA cancelled Generals 2 and then came up with Rivals, he is the one who ruined everything.
I have ‘social interaction’ in my games. I asked my friend: “Did you play Mario Odyssey?” And he said: “Yeah, it was good wasn’t it?” Social Interaction!
Me and my friend were literally playing Sekiro at the same time on side by side screens, talking about all the cool shit and helping each other with tips and to find cool items and stuff. Far more "social interaction" than playing with shouty randos in some multiplayer game lol
@@P1nkR but god forbid you and your friend play it on the same disc, or console, or screen, nononononono see if you want to play with your friend you have to pay for ANOTHER 350$ console, ANOTHER copy of this 60 Dollar game, ANOTHER 400$ television, and then you BOTH have to pay for an online subscription fee of X dollars per month and THEN you 2 can play together.................. over shitty internet connection that you're already paying for.
"I wish you would fall into a pit filled with one thousand of yourself, which would be torture because being around just one of you is torture." -Brad Neely
Hey at least not all of them are completely corrupt, I’m sure him did a video on Nintendo’s president calling out crunch, and just look at how CD project red handles cyberpunk 2077 at E3. Because god knows we need some positives with the current state of the industry
tioscha0 Randy Pitchford is basically the only bad thing about Borderlands 3, which is a... good sign?... I think?? Just ignore the idiot baby man and enjoy the good game made by a good team of passionate developers with a manchild for a ceo.
I'd argue that corporations "discover" what customers "want" by researching what will make the corporation the most money and then just lie about it COINCIDENTALLY being what players want.
I honestly think they aren't trying to deceive there, and literally cannot see a difference. "If more people are buying, clearly that's what they wanted." I think a lot of people would argue that, tbh. It's short and snappy and sounds like it makes good sense, and surely there's a strong element of truth to it, so it's easy to just accept as-is. And difficult to articulate what it's missing.
@@gamedesignwithmichael Nicotine Company: Creates a vape machine, a brand new way to smoke! Nicotine Addicts: But we don't want to smoke anymore, we know it doesn't make us cool anymore! Nicotine Company: But this Vape makes you soo much cooler! Plus you're already addicted so you'll be buying it anyway. Nicotine Addict: fffffFFF CK
His third or fourth paragraph is genuine doublethink. He fails to finish the first meaningless sentence and just somehow segues from "single player games are doing well" to "which is why we don't want single player games".
They have to speak like this, otherwise normal people would flip their shit once they realized what it /actually/ meant. It's the art of speaking at length without truly saying anything.
I understand what he's saying and it's a bullshit argument that ignores the fact that the platforms he mentioned were created with networking as the primary attraction. Granted, there are some games that emphasize the importance of networking, but that in itself does not justify his ideal vision of a world where all games are predicated on social interactivity.
Consuming content while the midst of a catastrophic cloud dissipation event is psychogastronomically disruptive. You must consume content with others for a peak cerebroempathic enjoyment experience.
It called management speak. When the user is trying to make bollocks sound intelligent, normally when they are doing a con job or have not got a clue about the subject in question.
Basically, corporations want to control what you buy, how you buy it, where you buy it, and, with no concept of consumer/worker power, or even the illusion of it. Makes sense.
@chunkycake101 But we are living under capitalism and the system is designed to favour the elites. If a noble is exploiting you and you live under feudalism, it is not the noble the one at fault but the system.
Then it is gamer's ultimate goal that "Eventually publishers will not own our hard-earned cash. They can have it temporarily as an interest free loan in exchange they let us access their game, and when we finish with accessing the game, they will have to return the full sum of the money they borrowed". It's only fair right? lol
Isn't this already the case through services like Steam. You don't own any of the games in your Steam library, technically you have paid to access them (and steam reserves the right to remove them from you) (separate issue to all the DLC, pay to win, loot box controversy)
@@blastech4095 That's...not even close to how it works. People pay real money for that software, Steam can't just take it away whenever they want without at least giving a refund first. They'd get sued into oblivion because that's a highly illegal thing to do.
Frankly this war on ownership needs to be fought back against. Companies need to be forced to abide by the axiom of games as GOODS, and if not well they waive the privilege to not have their game files extracted from the servers and re-sold as actual products like they're supposed to be. If the law does not benefit the consumer, or even actively HARMS the consumer, it is illegitimate and must be ignored and discouraged from being enforced.
Depending on your countries consumer laws that may already be the case. Aussie here. For us legally it's the same as if you bought it in a shop or off of steam, psn, whatever. You buy it, you own it. Physical or not. No companies TOS overrides the law. It's that simple.
I've been getting into retro gaming lately. Best decision I've ever made. No dlc or micro transactions and incredibly cheap unless you want to play the rare stuff.
Ditto. Current games are pretty shit anyways. They feel like another job instead of fun. I keep finding myself playing PS2 era games a lot these days like DMC3.
Same here. I got an NES and SNES mini and added all my childhood games on both. Really nice that neither system connects to the internet. Btw I love Yu Yu Hakusho.
Everyone: We want more single player games! EA: Everyone demands social interaction in games. One of these things is not like the other, one of these doesn’t belong
"f it's ultimately found that any form of monetization is inappropriate, we'll do something different." This is the same CEO who decided to to continue selling their shit in Belgium even when they themselves said it violates their laws, and then turned around and said "Violating your laws? Well, that's like, your opinion, man."
When was the last time they put out something big with exclusively good PR? Mass Effect 2? It's been a long time since people were last okay with anything they've done.
I think the only EA game I ever purchased was Alice Madness Returns. That one was pretty good. I just don't think I will ever touch their current library.
except too many ppl are too stupid to discipline themself enough to not fall for those tactics. I'd almost blame the gamers who can't control themselves from preorders from shady companies like EA, but unfortunately i think there are too many children with access to their parents bank accounts that buy without their parent's knowledge.... i think loot boxes need to be made illegal. not necessarily micro-transactions. if u know what you're purchasing and it's not a "surprise mechanic" (lol) and it's purely cosmetic--- so it can't be used in a play to win tactic, it should be fine.
The problem with EA is that they expand like an amoeba, gobbling up beloved game companies/ developers as they go through corporate takeovers. This means that a game you have already bought from that beloved company/ developer may soon fall under EA's one-sided "agreement, read: "restrictions of your rights" between them and you.
@@michaelmusic499 Another I would consider to "restrict" by law is the use of "virtual currency" like "Atoms" in Fallout 76 for example. It's just stupid to trade dollars/euros/whatever for some made-up currency, that is only worth anything in ONE game. Not to mention the practice of not allowing your customers to buy just the amount they need. You can only ever buy more than you need, leaving you with spare "pennies", that are trying to coax you into buying more of the stuff. Or rather than restriction by law, I would just like to see them gone.
He tried playing that new-fangled "Tetris" thingy once but he couldn't get the pieces to fit properly without paying for the DLC that makes all the pieces straight.
It's about money! It's always all about the money! "gamers interact socially to consume this content and remain engaged" means "gamers feel attached to a game because their friends play it, and we can use that to repeatedly milk their wallets."
Exactly. They know they can make more sales, and thus more money, when they turn their consumers into unwitting salesmen. You get the game cuz your buddy plays the game, and he keeps pressuring you to get it so you two can hang out. Once you buy it, even if you don't like it, you'll keep playing to be with your friends.
It's insidious how they bake social/competitive elements in, even ramming them into formerly single-player franchises. In games like Far Cry 4 onward, as many as half the achievements are "in co-op mode.." and 5 requires that co-op partners be on your UPlay friends list, like the tethers to the game (and its microtransactions) will be stronger that way.
@@Skelath Arguably more so these days. People are more aware than ever of the harmful, potentially addictive/manipulative aspects of substances like alcohol and nicotine. The same potential for addiction and manipulation exists in games if they're built with malicious intent, but it's not as widely recognized.
@@BackwardsPancake Lootboxes in games are killing people in real life are they? Seems like you're not aware at all of the dangers of nicotine and alcohol.
Access over ownership went sour imo when I saw what Amazon did to someone's library of books (on their Kindle) when they suspected foul play due to a breached account. A library worth of books bought were gone. Now imagine EA in control of a similar situation....
Add to that many more examples I've witnessed first-hand. I despise "recurring revenue subscriptions" ever since I used to play WoW online with a monthly fee - some stuff happened there which made me realise it was very VERY bad for the consumer, and it puts us utterly at the whim of the corporation in control of the "service" where they can act literally with impunity and without repercussion in any way they please with our "access".
EA has actually already done this recently. Someone had a closed beta to Anthem I think it was and the streamed it while under NDA and EA removed everything from his account he had paid for.
I had a PSN account that got purged since I didn't use it for a few years. The account was gone along with some games that I bought digitally. Thats when it hit me. We don't own our games at all. Atleast, not the ones that are tied to a account. The single-use license keys just seal the deal. Once the account goes poof, so do all of 'our' purchases. Digital DRM gaming can go eat a bag of horse-dicks. Stadia is just the next level in eroding consumer power and rights.
@@maidenreligion12 except arcade games were intentionaly designed to he impossible to play without having to pump money in. Play the tmnt games or the simpsons game. To attack enemies you have to get hit, its unavoidable. But if you play better you can live a bit longer but eventually you have to put more money in.
A wise philosopher once said: If you can imagine it, you can achieve it. If you can dream it, you can become it. EA: If you buy it, you won't own it. Me: But if I pirate it, I'll keep it.
@@Avrysatos I think so. It's not like you aren't supporting the original developers or people involved in the production, after all you legitimately bought a copy. Whether it's legal or not is another question, I wouldn't be surprised if it violated pretty much every EULA regarding questions about whether or not you have the right to modify your game files.
Hey Jim, you always seem to have a good memory... Remember when EA strong-armed Microsoft into allowing them to turn off access to multiplayer servers for annual titles like FIFA and Madden? In the early days of Xbox Live Microsoft wanted to keep every game working forever, since people were paying a subscription for it, but EA threatened to go PS2 exclusive if they weren't allowed to disable the servers at will. They've been trying to control what their customers can play for longer than you might think.
disgusting cuntbags, but guess what? EA knows they are being exposed and we give em hell. this shit will end, no longer UNFAIRNESS in the fuckfest that is the gaming industry.
EA: Loot boxes aren't bad, they promote accessing our games. Also, multiplayer live services are the future of gaming Gamers: *Aw shit, here we go again*
Says EA who is currently in the shitter stock-wise, mired in controversy, still has the rep of worst company in the country, and is completely devoid of IP to dig themselves out of this hole all because they tried to push this exact same shit for years now while pretending no one noticed. They seem to have a bad habit of thinking people are idiots while making some pretty stupid decisions themselves. Maybe the board should just fire Andrew Wilson and put some one in charge who knows how to exploit people intelligently.
Social interaction is just corporate speak for "we want players as content because generating actual content cuts into the profitability of our monetisation strategy"
What took you so long. I came to that conclusion after Underground 2. Not because that NFS game was bad, but all the following games were. Same thing for Ubisoft's prince of Persia, after that it was all buggy shit.
I avoid blanket statements like that. It's possible that a real game might somehow get made by one of their victim studios at some point in the future. But I'd characterize the odds of me buying an EA product ever again as "extremely remote."
When your entire business structure is based solely on providing online content but your too incompetent to even do that then that's probably a bad business structure
When the publishers say certain genres of games are dying or that people don't want them anyome and such, I don't think they believe it. They do however want everyone else to believe it. They manipulate people by only offering live services so that becomes the norm for new players who don't know better.
"Demands social interaction" says the android that appears perpetually confused as to how these biological hoo-man units communicate with each in an understandable manner. Don't worry, Andrew. One day the Good Fairy might feel enough pity for you and turn you into a real boy.
JoMcD21 Fun Fact: It was designed by a woman to be PURPOSEFULLY table flipping as an education tool. She did provide rules that made it actually enjoyable, but some asshole stole her game and sold it to Park Bros under his name
And here is a source: www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-history-monopoly-capitalist-game-leftwing-origins I always hated that game, glad my hate is justified
@@starbird3939 I guess flipping the board was a good stand in for sudden radical change. Like a depression, natural disaster or, nuclear annihilation. It could happen at any moment and could even be spurred on by the petty decisions of the player or maybe an "accident"
Many (if not most) "social" games these days are not remotely social. Their social component amounts to forcing people to play with complete strangers to compete in contrived competitive scenarios, while fighting for meaningless rewards, along with lootboxes and microtransactions and pay-to-win design. A real "social" game was vanilla SWG. It was a game designed to be interdependent, similar to the functioning of a real society, and people voluntarily chose professions like being an entertainer or a politician or a crafter. Some running entire businesses within the game, managing player-run cities, etc. When I think of "social interaction" in a game, that's the standard for me. Not pugs. Not forced social interaction as part of a game that is clearly a single-player game at its core. But I know that nowadays, the AAA industry would wreck something like vanilla SWG. They would find ways to nickle and dime it, and turn an interdependent system within the game into a monetized, real-world-money system. And more and likely they just would never make something like that again because it's not easy enough to monetize. So when they talk about "social interaction," I just call total BS. They don't care about social interaction in games. They care about peer pressure as a tool for selling goods to people.
@@Butzebaer No problem. I'm happy to give the name when asked. It stands for Star Wars Galaxies, an old MMORPG that was discontinued some years back. The common term used for the version of it before it went through any major changes is SWG pre-CU, referring to the state of the game before the "Combat Upgrade" changes to the game that revamped the combat system and the NGE ("New Game Enhancement") changes that later followed that (the NGE being a much more sweeping set of changes that, among other things, consolidated the 36 or so professions into a streamlined 9, including making Jedi a starter profession). If you ever hear people talking about the game and its changes, those are probably the most important things to know about it.
Been on it for over a decade. Thought they were changing their tune at one point, they wanted to stop being known as the worst company of all time. I had my reservations about that, and it's only become more transparent over time. It's not that they don't want to be bad, it's that they don't want the consequences of it (especially financial).
Yes but not just EA... Take Two, Epic, Ubisoft... all triple-A companies would need to die before gaming could return to the niche pastime we want it to be.
@@cactusman1771 and how many actually work for that entry level wage? Plus, how many different Taxes do you pay on your purchases? Where I am, we pay 2
See what Andrew doesn't understand is yes we want horror, strategy, and single player games we just want them to be good which is a concept beyond Andrew Wilson's comprehension.
I think you're hitting on a very important point here: Horror/Strategy/Single-player are all genres that only work if they're really well designed, have lots of effort put in, and are self-sufficient in general. Bean-counting corporate entities don't want to make them, because why would they spend effort and resources crafting something like that when they could just churn out some vapid multiplayer/social game where they only have to build half the product at less than half the cost, and the people playing make up the other half? For multiplayer games, players are part of the content, and the corporates fucking love that, since not only do they not have to pay to add this content to their game, the content will actually pay _them_.
Manored that was my impression of that first paragraph. He’s literally just describing the MMO. This idea isn’t new, it’s old. There is most certainly a lucrative market for those kinds of games, but that market isn’t that big.
MMOs have their place, and there's a point to be made in people signing up for a game that offers what basically seems to be an endless stream of unending content. BUT if that's what these companies were ACTUALLY offering instead of a bunch of shitty random chances to artificially pad out the lengths of their games, then this topic wouldn't even be a thing right now, would it? They don't want to take the money they make and pump it back into the game like any other MMO Developer would, they just want to flood people's experiences down with BS that nobody cares about and random chances to keep their 'fans' around until they can make a quick buck and keep on milking things. There's just such an entire world of difference between those two things that it's not even funny.
@@dracocrusher MMOs indeed have their place, I was pointing out that games that allow people to be massively social already exist and yet they aren't the biggest thing in gaming... therefore he is wrong.
If you even consider that his starting point is a false equivalency (we got along pretty well without live services helping 'social interaction' in games such as Counterstrike and Starcraft), most of what he says is pure drivel. But it's not for us gamers or the dev side of the game industry really. He wouldn't be referencing baseball cards if this was about that side. It's management jargon aimed at boomers, i.e. his corporate allies and shareholders and the style smacks of obfuscation and spin. It kinda makes you wonder what is going on behind closed doors that Wilson has to do one of those rare interviews and spew nothing but stories of 'how much gamers apparently want constant social interaction'. It's almost as if someone has slowly started questioning whether this live service gig has any longevity and whether or not those live service games have any reliable staying power.
Actually, it was a legal requirement in China to always list win chance percentages. That is why EA did it with FIFA, so they could release the game in China.
Nomadski Everything that came out of his mouth was either a blatant lie, a highly warped interpretation of facts, or completely misinformed. The fact that he would lie about the win percentages surprises no one I’m sure.
As an anti-social introvert I will say that one of the thing I'm looking forward to when playing a videogame is to not have any kind of interaction with any other kind of living being in any way whatsoever.
But, don't you just love the idea of every game having the fun-filled, family-friendly community of a Battlefield game? Dragon's Age with Trolls! A new Mass Effect with Trolls! The Sims, with Trolls! Those sports games I hate, with more Trolls! And all of this wrapped up in planned obsolescence and surprise wallet shrinking. Amazing. I can't wait!
@@JumblyJumble Just trolls? Did you forget teh incels? the Racist nutjobs? the homophobes? The unhinged fanatics? the 12 year-old no supervision kids? The 'you're doing it wrong' twits that think they know better? The me-first fuckers who are under the delusion that they alone are competent? There are so many great people to interact with online!... Those were sarcastic thoughts!
@@branimirstoilov8640 EA: "You're absolutely right. There are so many wonderful people to communicate with over the internet which is why we aim to build communal and competitive gaming experiences that allow you to socially interact with other players so you can engage with the content we provide in the most compelling and lucrative ways possible. Also so you can develop envy and spend money on a randomizer. That too."
As a person who plays single player (or rarely couch Co op) games almost exclusively the excuses they comes up with for adding more (and continuing to have) loot boxes/surprise boxes/microtransactions sounds absolutely *laughable*. I guarantee people would play many shittier but fun games without £90 spent on loot boxes to get the glittery fancy skins or weapons they've gated behind money.
For the last 7 years I almost only played indie/less known/older games, just because I feel no longer attracted by the vast majority of AAA games. If every game will become a live service I think I'll just stop playing
@@Rifky809 A part of me wishes though that there are more pro consumer companies, especially big ones like CDPR but they are very hard to come by nowadays.
Everything Wilson says is the reason why i have not bought an EA game in over a decade and will continue to not buy any EA games even if the game they are making is my "dream game"
And can potentially trade the cards with someone who might have something of equal or greater value, a majority of these games you can’t trade the skins or resell them if you don’t like them. And once they pull the plug on those servers you’re stuck with them, you’ve spent money on a dead game and dead skins
Corporate CEOs caring about their consumers is a fallacy. They care only about their share holders because that is their job. Make the business profitable for the shareholders at all costs.
@@novaiscool1 Yup. But many CEOs, especially the ones at EA, don't actually care about the long term, all they care about is getting that financial number as high as possible for the next quarter, regardless of what harm it does to the company overall. It's like the Bestfriends said on their new podcast, if you cook a frog in a pot slowly then it won't jump out because it'll get used to the water. But these guys don't think about how to make sure they keep the frog in, they just look at the frog in the pot and think "Yeah, we can just skip from step 1 to step 18 and eat the frog now!" and then they just dump everything into what to do when the frog's cooked before they even know if it's going to stay in the pot! It doesn't matter how much they can make long-term, they just see a button on their desk that says 'free money' and companies like EA will spam that button as hard and fast as possible no matter how risky it is. And then they'll actively lie about touching it at all the instant hitting that button becomes a bad thing to people, because that's exactly where their mind is here. It's 100% just focused on how much they can do in the now until things go wrong, and then it turns to course-correcting just to get people to shut up so they can go right back to what they were doing. That's why it's so important for people to call them out on this. Because the moment people forget that they've done this crap and they find a way to slip it under the radar, then that becomes the moment that EA wins and the consumers lose-out. Just look how shitty their Sports titles have become for direct proof of that.
@@novaiscool1 EA knows they can do essentially whatever they want and people will still buy their big titles. Even with all the bad publicity and lack-luster reviews BF5 still sold ~7million copies and we all know what fifa is. Anthem has been an outlier for EA really.
@@m13579k The only thing I've heard about BF5 is "But they put girls in WWII, so it's bad!" which, if anything, felt like something that would make people want to buy the game more because people like playing female characters. Not exactly the type of thing I'd say is up there with the worst EA has done. Oh no, a game isn't historically accurate... what a disaster....
@@randomguy6679 And yet EA is fighting so hard for this exact outcome- where they have all the control and power and not enough audience to maintain their empire. EA is fighting for their own self destruction in the name of profits. Tragically, they will take bystanders out with them. Fight that future.
@@brandonontama2415 According to rumor and anonymous employee reports which you should take with a grain of salt. Those can be fabricated in any number of ways and no one would truly know since they're anonymous n' all. I wouldn't make accusations till we have more legit info. As for me, yeah it be indies and I'd just keep collecting older games that're fun. Still plenty out there.
@@sethbritton6970 The market will speak for EA failure. The more scummy their practice is, the worst each game they release after it will get til no one will want to touch them like that Firm that went bankrupt because of their involvement in the 08 market crash.
honestly as gamers, as consumers we need a lobbying group against this sort of fuckery. if the industry wants to push this hard we have to band together and push back.
@@manwithoutmercy i was thinking bigger than that, band together big names and organizations to push back, EEF, Jim Sterling, Ross Scott, Sidalpha, upper echelon gaming etc etc. get an advocacy group
I want to draw attention to something he said in that second quote. ".....that broader network value that I have as a player." If the man were actually a gamer, he would understand how absolutely ridiculous his argument is at its core.
This is what pisses me off. These cunts who've never even so much as held a controller, talking about the industry as if they know. Like all CEOs, the moment games aren't as profitable he's going to jump ship to whatever industry is trending. I wish games never went mainstream. companies at e3 actually have the gall to present phone games. 10 years ago, they would have been booed off the stage.
So EA is basically becoming the Ruthless Konglomerate Megacorp from Stellaris: „Every successful economy is built upon an endless cycle of repetition, where we sell you the empty promise of happiness and fulfillment and unfulfilled as ever, you still come back for more.“
Christ the night, the 'Android Wilson' jokes really don't overstate the case. It's easy to write off his... erm... 'rhetorical style,' as corporate-speak but, honestly, as someone who hears plenty of corporate-speak as part of his day-job, I've never heard it sound so much like a programmer has tried to beat the Turing Test over the course of one incredibly drunken weekend. If anything, we've got to the point where saying he sounds like a robot is doing a disservice to modern AI.
Gamers: "Can't wait for the bubble to burst!" Gamers during every E3, PAX, [insert convention]: "HYPE! Take my money!" Good luck waiting for the burst.
@@saranghae1saranghae oh believe you me, that shit annoys me worse than anything. But FO76 broke me on new releases and I'm committed to it. I just hope, gradually, more and more people will get there too. ET for the atari didn't happen at the beginning of that bubble
I find it funny that game companies are trying to dictate what we want. Players "demand" social interaction. That's not what we want, yet they insist on saying that's what we want.
When big publishers, especially EA tell gamers what they want, you have to realize they're using the wrong terminology. They think gamers and these people who keep playing and spending on live services are the same thing. They label us all "gamers". They don't realize that these other people are a new breed, not gamers, a completely different target audience. We really need a name for them. "Engagers" is the obvious one but I dunno man.
To be fair, gamers do need and care about social interaction. And I can say that with confidence because without other gamers pointing out what a scummy mess EA's games have become, they might have actually gotten away with all of this shit! So congrats to social interaction for not letting these morons run everything into the ground with their shit-circus of terrible decisions.
@@dracocrusher Yeah man, the only positive thing to come out of all this is the sense of community it builds among the people who are opposed. The Triple A doing their best to be a common enemy that gamers can unite against.
I have no Facebook, I have no Twitter, I have no Snapchat, infact I don't use any social media account that would require or show my own personal information inorder to access it and I sure as hell don't play any game for social experience of online play; I play them for personal interactive experience, for stories and fun innovative gameplay and so far I haven't gotten any of that to satisfactory degree from what few online games I've tried out over the years. And this is why I haven't bought any games from EA since latest Mirror's Edge. Not only are they're business practices downright disgusting, but they simply don't make any games anymore, that I would give zero fuks about.
Wilson is just another executive who moved into gaming from packaged goods since there is less oversight of the business. AAA gaming is the newest incarnation of the used car salesman.
I know right? I enjoy the freedom of not being bound by worldly principles, physics, or logic. There is just infinite and boundless space for full-core engagement, player choice, and optimized player access.
Companies comparing lootboxes to physical card packs/random prize boxes continues to infuriate me. Because, yes, we probably could have a discussion about more regulation in the physical lootbox space! But at the end of the day, you *actually receive a physical item you own* when you open a physical card pack. AND there's a market-controlled limit on how many whales there can be, because, since this is a physical card, you can always simply buy it on the open market from another player/collector rather than throwing the dice on card packs.
It's really telling that he references that though. Like...damn. That took me back. Used to make fun of that one kid who actually, unironically, bought some of those cards.
"Live services" and "Cloud gaming" will see the return of MMO type subscriptions just to get access to what we already have now for free. Horde as much physical media as you can Ladies and Gent's because gaming is about to become way more expensive.
I've already played enough games in my life, I can ether sit on my steam backlog. Or just say screw it, I don't need to buy any new games anymore. I'm getting too old for this shit anyway. Not gaming, just the Drama of the games industry.
They say "Gaming" is supposed to be a luxury pastime... Which is why countries like Australia pay four times more than anywhere else. *spit* that's bullsh!t i say!! It has genres, stories and music. Pretty much anything and everything you imagine can be put into game. Gaming is the ultimate art form... Short of bending reality to your will.
If this is where the game industry is heading, we will see a great new wave of piracy. As much as if Valve completely went under I might lose it, I still feel I own the games in my Steam library. I DO NOT want games on a subscription service whatsoever. GoG has the best model (similar to Bandcamp for music) but just not as much to offer (I guess also similar to Bandcamp)
Lets be honest ubisoft, ea, google and the rest of them are not going to take over the game streaming service model as long as microsoft keep giving it away. EA has a venomous image that makes it even harder for them to takeover and unlike console streaming services they are clearly making a bias platform which lets be even more honest doesnt even work for porn sites.
Efreeti cable TV programs did something like this in the past, you cannot buy a perpetual license to watch shows whenever and wherever since they weren’t released on a physical disk. Most of them are only available through a cable subscription.
You can't pirate what you can't download. That's the idea here, you're checkmated. You don't get a choice, can talk pirating as much as you want, but they've finally found a DRM you can't crack and of course they're ready to go all-in on that.
@Ultmateluigiman You're sounding legitimately like a villain at this point. A boycott sounds a lot better than DDOS. If people willingly pay for their junk, it's not really your place to go on the offense.
@@Aeroxima I agree with you, however what ultmateluigiman says about DDOS probably will happen at least in the beginning. There will e little groups that hold the streaming services offline as means to try and force thier hand but it won't work. even if you cost them 100million$ in losses they'd eat that if it meant when the servers come back on they get a billion$ in revenue.
This is why I'm glad I enjoy older games. There's plenty of old DS and 3DS titles I still need, and I have a pretty good library to keep playing. This is why I like them, they can't force me to play with others and I own those games. And of course I just love the games. This BS can piss off.
That kinda reminds me of the time I wanted to buy a little kitten. The thing was beautiful. 400€ was quite expensive, but it was beautiful. Up to the point, when I read the contract of ownership, that essentially gave the organisation, that sold the cat, the right, to come and get it back, without refunding the spent money, whenever they decide to do so. Needless to say we did not buy the kitten.
*Wilson:* So it's actually possible to do this right.
*Jim:* No it's not. Fuck off.
Definition of a short but sweet response.
Well, I'm sure he meant "do this right in favour of the money grubbing corporations". There's no way to do it right for customers, but for greedy bastards who want to own everything, I'm sure there's lots of "right" ways to do it. :p
It would very much be possible... if the actual game owners in question had a history of being honest and fair.
Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world
And the seven seas,
(Everybody's looking for something.)
Some of them want to use u
some of them want to get used by u
some of them want to abuse u
some of them want to be abused.
I don't engage in social media, and I don't play social oriented games. So no, you are wrong Andrew Asshole. On another note, I'm done buying AAA games. Unless Bethesda cleans up it's act, I'm done with all of them, forever.
Would love to see a scripted reality series "The adventures of Bobby Narkotick and Android Wilson". Wait, such a series would just be called True Lies. Screw these guys.
It's not being removed as the CEO of EA.
It's 'Surprise Unemployment'
Bravo.
This meme never stops being funny to me.
Got to admire your faith in EA. I really doubt they will throw Wilson out over any of those news.
The only reason I see for them to remove him would be eating a shareholder alive and even that is a maybe.
Either that or shares dropping and him being the only person left to lay off.
I am using my download mechanics from surprise torrents....
@@MrLordAzkar same
EA gives you access to games.
Pirate Bay gives you ownership of games.
don't steal plz, gog.com also give you ownership and offline playability. Try them out!
@@BY-it2oe stealing and piracy is not the same thing, but thanks
@@BY-it2oe If they refuse to put their game on GOG, then?
@@Saviliana
Then invest in ebay 2ndhand console games, dosbox and emulators, those are dirty cheap and games from those golden eras are largely free of this bullshit.
take jrpg as example, most of them (fire emblem/chrono ) series easily eats 60 hours of play time. Get all of those plus less known dosbox rpg titles such as albion(1996) and stonekeep series. Assume your hardware is properly maintained, you can easily outlast greedy corporate fatcats.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Uh oh
Why does it say "error cannot find system 32"
This is why people who have never played a video game have no business running a video game company.
Oh don't be silly. That's what the focus groups are for.
And that's why Nintendo is still the best.
It's like when a detergent company buys an orange juice factory and they come up with Sunny D.
HarHar HarHar I don't know about either of his successors, but Iwata identified as a gamer before everything else.
@@TheOneAndOnlyDerp The people who run Nintendo made games themselves way back in the day. They didn't just run the company.
Andrew Wilson: Obsessed with social interaction
Also Andrew Wilson: Avoids being interviewed for years
Dudeboy oof
No wonder he avoids interviews, he somehow says a lot while also saying nothing
Who needs "social interactions" when you have cocaine, hookers, and hundreds of millions of dollars stashed away in offshore accounts???
He needed that time to observer human behavior when interacting to analyze and put in proper recognition patterns., still hasn't managed it completely though to pass as non mechanical human..
@@narudan He needs to spend more time with Mark Zuckerberg, a fellow android.
I'm not pirating your game, I'm just giving myself Surprise Access
@@YokiDokiPanic asseccs
“People play single-player games because they want social interaction!”
He’s a genius! Somebody give this man a medal! And then fire him! And then take the medal back from his unemployed hands!
Give him access to a medal
Yeah that bit confused me too. He lists off a few successful singleplayer games as examples of social interactions in gaming .... wat?
I think he means people want things that they can talk to other people about instead of... you know, enjoying a really good story or just having fun on your own. And even then he seems to be ignoring the fact that when you talk to other people about good games, it's usually to recommend to other people so they can then also have fun on their own. It's almost like a CEO with no concept of regular human thought doesn't understand video games or normal social interaction for that matter.
Don't take the medal back. Chop his hands off.
Charge him £60 quid for the right to pay to enter a lottery that has a medal as it's top prize.
If loot boxes are surprise mechanics, piracy is just a surprise discount :P
It's actually unlimited trail version or a fully unlocked demo
allltho , if they manage to pull through with this game streaming thing, i think even piracy will die.
KillingPae nice
Online DRM is the worst thing ever
@@ArgetBlackStar there is always a work-around.
"Nobody wants story-driven games, no one wants strategy games" Those are literally my two favorite genres
Why is my life pain
because nobody wants pink Darth vader
"Nobody wants strategy games"
Paradox: Am I a joke to you?
@@niallthesheep1164 I know you're making a joke, but all of Paradox's games feel the exact same.
He killed C&C, after Riccitiello's resignation and Wilson taking the CEO sit EA cancelled Generals 2 and then came up with Rivals, he is the one who ruined everything.
We all remember that failure of a series Metal Gear Solid... Far too story driven to succeed
I have ‘social interaction’ in my games. I asked my friend: “Did you play Mario Odyssey?” And he said: “Yeah, it was good wasn’t it?”
Social Interaction!
They want you to play with your friends in the game, so they can sell you the same cool outfit that your friend has that makes you jealous of him.
Me and my friend were literally playing Sekiro at the same time on side by side screens, talking about all the cool shit and helping each other with tips and to find cool items and stuff. Far more "social interaction" than playing with shouty randos in some multiplayer game lol
@@P1nkR but god forbid you and your friend play it on the same disc, or console, or screen, nononononono see if you want to play with your friend you have to pay for ANOTHER 350$ console, ANOTHER copy of this 60 Dollar game, ANOTHER 400$ television, and then you BOTH have to pay for an online subscription fee of X dollars per month and THEN you 2 can play together.................. over shitty internet connection that you're already paying for.
My sister and I socialize over The Sims 3 & 4. We talk about what we've built in TS3, and bond over making fun of TS4.
Single player games are dying!
Players response: top 4 games of 2018 are all single player
Nice stats man
But EA can't monetize every aspect of a single player game! They make the money sad :(
I guess they meant: my wallet is dying (NOT really, maybe they can't buy golden toilets), more monetisation schemes, NAO!
@@SuperArppis Don't be so negative. They'll always be able to buy golden toilets.
Also, all GOTY2017 nominees (in vga, at least) are single player games...
Althoughnierdeservedthatgotyoverbotw
@@D_YellowMadness With black toilet paper on gold toilet paper holders.
"I wish you would fall into a pit filled with one thousand of yourself, which would be torture because being around just one of you is torture."
-Brad Neely
"Oh and the pit would suck too."
I miss China IL
L'Enfer c'est les Autres
Remember when the gameing industry was run by people who loved games and gaming?
It was a while ago admittedly.
@@PenguinWithInternetAccess have you heard of randy pitchfork?
There's always Nintendo
To be fair Nintendo still exists.
Hey at least not all of them are completely corrupt, I’m sure him did a video on Nintendo’s president calling out crunch, and just look at how CD project red handles cyberpunk 2077 at E3. Because god knows we need some positives with the current state of the industry
tioscha0
Randy Pitchford is basically the only bad thing about Borderlands 3, which is a... good sign?... I think??
Just ignore the idiot baby man and enjoy the good game made by a good team of passionate developers with a manchild for a ceo.
I'd argue that corporations "discover" what customers "want" by researching what will make the corporation the most money and then just lie about it COINCIDENTALLY being what players want.
I honestly think they aren't trying to deceive there, and literally cannot see a difference. "If more people are buying, clearly that's what they wanted." I think a lot of people would argue that, tbh. It's short and snappy and sounds like it makes good sense, and surely there's a strong element of truth to it, so it's easy to just accept as-is. And difficult to articulate what it's missing.
@@Aeroxima That's why we have lootboxes & microtransactions while most gamers hate them, thanks to whales & vulnerable people who can't resist
EA: (makes Battlefront 2)
Players: We told you this isn't what we want
EA: ................. Yes it is
@@RhysTuck One day you'll figure it out that lootboxes and smoking / vaping is literally no different.
@@gamedesignwithmichael
Nicotine Company: Creates a vape machine, a brand new way to smoke!
Nicotine Addicts: But we don't want to smoke anymore, we know it doesn't make us cool anymore!
Nicotine Company: But this Vape makes you soo much cooler! Plus you're already addicted so you'll be buying it anyway.
Nicotine Addict: fffffFFF CK
I swear, corporate talk is slowly developing into another language
It's called "newspeak".
Wait, you meant all this time they weren't?!
Hasn't changed since the 90s. "Bullshit"
His third or fourth paragraph is genuine doublethink. He fails to finish the first meaningless sentence and just somehow segues from "single player games are doing well" to "which is why we don't want single player games".
They have to speak like this, otherwise normal people would flip their shit once they realized what it /actually/ meant.
It's the art of speaking at length without truly saying anything.
I play mostly singleplayer games, because i don't wan't social interactions.
This.
Correct. I play games to escape the toxic culture.....
I play single player games to immerse myself in the story and had fun not go online to brag about my K/D ratio or my pay2win gear
Hell, I don’t even want social interaction while playing MMORPGs, I just ignore other players.
@@XescoPicas what ?
"Access over ownership" is what i believe in every time i pirate a game.
LMAO
Publishers: OOF
LOL
Fuck yeah lmao
Person 1: "Hey! Why are you stealing my car?!"
Person 2: "It's not a carjacking, it's a Surprise Uber!"
Perfect anecdote
Jim, never stop.
Sincerely,
Every normal gamer out there
This
So this.
This
Thank God for Jim Fucking Sterling Son!
This x whatever number we are up to.
English is my native language, but I couldn't comprehend a damn thing Wilson said.
I understand what he's saying and it's a bullshit argument that ignores the fact that the platforms he mentioned were created with networking as the primary attraction. Granted, there are some games that emphasize the importance of networking, but that in itself does not justify his ideal vision of a world where all games are predicated on social interactivity.
Consuming content while the midst of a catastrophic cloud dissipation event is psychogastronomically disruptive. You must consume content with others for a peak cerebroempathic enjoyment experience.
Speaking AAA-ese. The same they call paid randomized prizes “suprise mechanics” that could give you trash.
Just imagine him flipping you off with both hands, you'll get the gist of it.
It called management speak. When the user is trying to make bollocks sound intelligent, normally when they are doing a con job or have not got a clue about the subject in question.
Basically, corporations want to control what you buy, how you buy it, where you buy it, and, with no concept of consumer/worker power, or even the illusion of it. Makes sense.
c a p i t a l i s m
That sounds very cyberpunk lol.
@@Justfillintheblank Well, everything in our world has been heading towards that direction for a long time now. :)
Oh and then don't forget can arbitrarily take it away from you permanently without recourse despite you paying full AAA price for it.
@chunkycake101 But we are living under capitalism and the system is designed to favour the elites.
If a noble is exploiting you and you live under feudalism, it is not the noble the one at fault but the system.
"Our focus is that eventually, you will not own your games. You will just temporarily rent them from us."
- Electronic Arts
Then it is gamer's ultimate goal that "Eventually publishers will not own our hard-earned cash. They can have it temporarily as an interest free loan in exchange they let us access their game, and when we finish with accessing the game, they will have to return the full sum of the money they borrowed".
It's only fair right? lol
Yes, and remember what happened to BlockBuster.
Isn't this already the case through services like Steam. You don't own any of the games in your Steam library, technically you have paid to access them (and steam reserves the right to remove them from you) (separate issue to all the DLC, pay to win, loot box controversy)
@@blastech4095 That's...not even close to how it works. People pay real money for that software, Steam can't just take it away whenever they want without at least giving a refund first. They'd get sued into oblivion because that's a highly illegal thing to do.
Good now I have less a reason to buy EA games
Frankly this war on ownership needs to be fought back against. Companies need to be forced to abide by the axiom of games as GOODS, and if not well they waive the privilege to not have their game files extracted from the servers and re-sold as actual products like they're supposed to be.
If the law does not benefit the consumer, or even actively HARMS the consumer, it is illegitimate and must be ignored and discouraged from being enforced.
It has taken too long, but thankfully lawmakers are now starting to figure out that they have some work to do in this area.
Depending on your countries consumer laws that may already be the case. Aussie here. For us legally it's the same as if you bought it in a shop or off of steam, psn, whatever.
You buy it, you own it. Physical or not. No companies TOS overrides the law. It's that simple.
We have an answer to this problen already. Piracy
@@Vandragorax Sadly at the speed lawmakers react to things it will likely still be many years before any noticeable changes are made.
Game streaming is a natural evolution of how games will be played. You can fight it, and fail.
I've been getting into retro gaming lately. Best decision I've ever made. No dlc or micro transactions and incredibly cheap unless you want to play the rare stuff.
...and, perhaps, more importantly.....fun!
Ditto. Current games are pretty shit anyways. They feel like another job instead of fun. I keep finding myself playing PS2 era games a lot these days like DMC3.
Indie games ftw
I've gone back to ps1 games with an emulator on my phone for years now and I got a few games I still play on 360
Same here. I got an NES and SNES mini and added all my childhood games on both. Really nice that neither system connects to the internet. Btw I love Yu Yu Hakusho.
2019: *2K puts unskippable ads in their game*
2020: *EA - We estimate we can sell up to 80%...of a players screen before inducing seizures.*
10/10 reference
I understood that reference XD
What a great movie
@@thefury4815
Still haven't seen it yet. xD
this.
Everyone: We want more single player games!
EA: Everyone demands social interaction in games.
One of these things is not like the other, one of these doesn’t belong
"f it's ultimately found that any form of monetization is inappropriate, we'll do something different."
This is the same CEO who decided to to continue selling their shit in Belgium even when they themselves said it violates their laws, and then turned around and said "Violating your laws? Well, that's like, your opinion, man."
Big lebowski reference👍
GroundPoundable “Bro, I’m straight up not having a good time.”
I guess they disagree with their interpretation of the law?
@@alturius4 they disagreed with they ding in their profits.
"We don't call them loot boxes, we call them 'surprise mechanics'"... CEO proceeds to call them loot boxes.
Guess I won't be *ACCESSING* anymore of EA's titles from now on.
not that I did before anyway.
When was the last time they put out something big with exclusively good PR? Mass Effect 2? It's been a long time since people were last okay with anything they've done.
I've been getting EArly AAAccess to pirated versions of EA games; the pricepoint feels JUST right.
I think the only EA game I ever purchased was Alice Madness Returns. That one was pretty good. I just don't think I will ever touch their current library.
We can always "surprise download" them, iykwim :p
@@jolynekujobackfromprison744 Cripes I've been meaning to try out Madness returns and forgot all about it.
If games like Anthem are 'here to stay' then my money is, also, 'here to stay', right bloody inside my wallet.
except too many ppl are too stupid to discipline themself enough to not fall for those tactics. I'd almost blame the gamers who can't control themselves from preorders from shady companies like EA, but unfortunately i think there are too many children with access to their parents bank accounts that buy without their parent's knowledge.... i think loot boxes need to be made illegal. not necessarily micro-transactions. if u know what you're purchasing and it's not a "surprise mechanic" (lol) and it's purely cosmetic--- so it can't be used in a play to win tactic, it should be fine.
The problem with EA is that they expand like an amoeba, gobbling up beloved game companies/ developers as they go through corporate takeovers. This means that a game you have already bought from that beloved company/ developer may soon fall under EA's one-sided "agreement, read: "restrictions of your rights" between them and you.
@@michaelmusic499 Another I would consider to "restrict" by law is the use of "virtual currency" like "Atoms" in Fallout 76 for example. It's just stupid to trade dollars/euros/whatever for some made-up currency, that is only worth anything in ONE game. Not to mention the practice of not allowing your customers to buy just the amount they need. You can only ever buy more than you need, leaving you with spare "pennies", that are trying to coax you into buying more of the stuff.
Or rather than restriction by law, I would just like to see them gone.
That's fine EA I'll "access" your games *goes to pirate bay*
I'm more than happy to have a pirated copy of The Sims 4
It's a Surprise Access!
Are EA games even worth pirating?
@@Karmy.
How did you got it ?
yarr yarr!
I love the way he says "our behaviour as players", like he's ever actually played a video game in his life.
He tried playing that new-fangled "Tetris" thingy once but he couldn't get the pieces to fit properly without paying for the DLC that makes all the pieces straight.
Man never drank a Duff in his life!
It's about money! It's always all about the money!
"gamers interact socially to consume this content and remain engaged" means "gamers feel attached to a game because their friends play it, and we can use that to repeatedly milk their wallets."
Exactly. They know they can make more sales, and thus more money, when they turn their consumers into unwitting salesmen. You get the game cuz your buddy plays the game, and he keeps pressuring you to get it so you two can hang out. Once you buy it, even if you don't like it, you'll keep playing to be with your friends.
It's insidious how they bake social/competitive elements in, even ramming them into formerly single-player franchises. In games like Far Cry 4 onward, as many as half the achievements are "in co-op mode.." and 5 requires that co-op partners be on your UPlay friends list, like the tethers to the game (and its microtransactions) will be stronger that way.
@@Circuitssmith More insidious than Companies that produce consumable Nicotine or Alcoholic products?
@@Skelath Arguably more so these days. People are more aware than ever of the harmful, potentially addictive/manipulative aspects of substances like alcohol and nicotine. The same potential for addiction and manipulation exists in games if they're built with malicious intent, but it's not as widely recognized.
@@BackwardsPancake Lootboxes in games are killing people in real life are they?
Seems like you're not aware at all of the dangers of nicotine and alcohol.
"Fundamental cloud disruption" sounds like a euphamism for farting.
Complete global cloud disruption
Its not a fart, its a suprise gas release
I thought it was climate change.
It does! HAH!
Omg🤣👏👏🤫
Access over ownership went sour imo when I saw what Amazon did to someone's library of books (on their Kindle) when they suspected foul play due to a breached account. A library worth of books bought were gone. Now imagine EA in control of a similar situation....
Add to that many more examples I've witnessed first-hand. I despise "recurring revenue subscriptions" ever since I used to play WoW online with a monthly fee - some stuff happened there which made me realise it was very VERY bad for the consumer, and it puts us utterly at the whim of the corporation in control of the "service" where they can act literally with impunity and without repercussion in any way they please with our "access".
Already happened with steam for some people
EA has actually already done this recently. Someone had a closed beta to Anthem I think it was and the streamed it while under NDA and EA removed everything from his account he had paid for.
@@caos024 same. I've lost two games on steam since the companies decided to pull their assets from steam store
I had a PSN account that got purged since I didn't use it for a few years. The account was gone along with some games that I bought digitally. Thats when it hit me. We don't own our games at all. Atleast, not the ones that are tied to a account. The single-use license keys just seal the deal. Once the account goes poof, so do all of 'our' purchases. Digital DRM gaming can go eat a bag of horse-dicks.
Stadia is just the next level in eroding consumer power and rights.
the TLDR of what andrew says: we want to bring arcade and "insert coin to continue" back.
The difference is, you actually had to die before you were forced to put in another coin in arcades.
@@maidenreligion12 no wonder the concept of "lifes" kinda died with arcades, lots of games are much better off without it.
@@maidenreligion12 except arcade games were intentionaly designed to he impossible to play without having to pump money in.
Play the tmnt games or the simpsons game. To attack enemies you have to get hit, its unavoidable. But if you play better you can live a bit longer but eventually you have to put more money in.
A wise philosopher once said:
If you can imagine it, you can achieve it.
If you can dream it, you can become it.
EA: If you buy it, you won't own it.
Me: But if I pirate it, I'll keep it.
Is it ethical if you buy a game and then pirate it to avoid the bs?
@@Avrysatos According to a recent study, most people think so.
Nothing EA makes is even worth pirating anymore.
@@Avrysatos I think so. It's not like you aren't supporting the original developers or people involved in the production, after all you legitimately bought a copy.
Whether it's legal or not is another question, I wouldn't be surprised if it violated pretty much every EULA regarding questions about whether or not you have the right to modify your game files.
@@Avrysatos Yes it is, without a doubt.
It’s not bankruptcy, it’s a surprise gamer revolution!
Hiccup Haddock
*We live in a Society*
*Gamers rise up*
Kyle M It’s not arson, it’s surprise combustion
Hey Jim, you always seem to have a good memory... Remember when EA strong-armed Microsoft into allowing them to turn off access to multiplayer servers for annual titles like FIFA and Madden? In the early days of Xbox Live Microsoft wanted to keep every game working forever, since people were paying a subscription for it, but EA threatened to go PS2 exclusive if they weren't allowed to disable the servers at will. They've been trying to control what their customers can play for longer than you might think.
disgusting cuntbags, but guess what? EA knows they are being exposed and we give em hell. this shit will end, no longer UNFAIRNESS in the fuckfest that is the gaming industry.
EA: Loot boxes aren't bad, they promote accessing our games. Also, multiplayer live services are the future of gaming
Gamers: *Aw shit, here we go again*
Shhheeiiittt
God of War 4: Boi
Rdr2: Boah
Cyberpunk 2077 disagrees.
Says EA who is currently in the shitter stock-wise, mired in controversy, still has the rep of worst company in the country, and is completely devoid of IP to dig themselves out of this hole all because they tried to push this exact same shit for years now while pretending no one noticed. They seem to have a bad habit of thinking people are idiots while making some pretty stupid decisions themselves. Maybe the board should just fire Andrew Wilson and put some one in charge who knows how to exploit people intelligently.
@@ManOutofTime913 No. The whole top needs to go. Fire Wilson, fire the Board, replace them all with folks who actually care about games.
...wow... and I thought I couldn't possibly hate EA anymore
Yeah, same
There's always another reason.
It's like EA is *trying* to make us hate them more
Just wait a bit more. They'll fuck another thing up in a week or so.
Honestly though, it's mainly the big shots running the operation, I'd imagine a simple ceo change can turn things around greatly for EA.
Social interaction is just corporate speak for "we want players as content because generating actual content cuts into the profitability of our monetisation strategy"
I will never buy another EA product again.
What took you so long. I came to that conclusion after Underground 2. Not because that NFS game was bad, but all the following games were. Same thing for Ubisoft's prince of Persia, after that it was all buggy shit.
Bunch o cunt is what they are.
Welcome to the club. Sadly, there are still so many sheeps buying their shit without a care in the world, this is futile.
I avoid blanket statements like that. It's possible that a real game might somehow get made by one of their victim studios at some point in the future. But I'd characterize the odds of me buying an EA product ever again as "extremely remote."
That's what everyone says until they get hyped again and buy the games anyway.
Jim's "Anthem": half-naked woman running endlessly on an empty, deserted wasteland
That's poetry right there...
if that was Anthem
I'll pass, can't tell if she is a she
I have enough social interaction in my real life. What I like about games is that they give an opportunity to escape from real life.
It's not piracy, it's suprise 100% discount!
Shit
Surprise another Chimo anime lover! What?
When your entire business structure is based solely on providing online content but your too incompetent to even do that then that's probably a bad business structure
When the publishers say certain genres of games are dying or that people don't want them anyome and such, I don't think they believe it. They do however want everyone else to believe it.
They manipulate people by only offering live services so that becomes the norm for new players who don't know better.
"Demands social interaction" says the android that appears perpetually confused as to how these biological hoo-man units communicate with each in an understandable manner.
Don't worry, Andrew. One day the Good Fairy might feel enough pity for you and turn you into a real boy.
That's what he wants you to think.
He actually likes being an evil robot whose only goal is to "CONSUUUME!" all of humanity's resources
😂😂😂👌
I like to imagine the sixth Doctor's reaction to this: 'Access over ownership? Access Over Ownership? ACCESS OVER OWNERSHIP?'
Yeah. This guy is the essence of r/TOTALLYNOTROBOTS
he probably runs on Windows 98 still
Monopoly always ends with a flipped over table. Keep that in mind Mr. Wilson. 🎩
JoMcD21 Fun Fact: It was designed by a woman to be PURPOSEFULLY table flipping as an education tool.
She did provide rules that made it actually enjoyable, but some asshole stole her game and sold it to Park Bros under his name
And here is a source:
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-history-monopoly-capitalist-game-leftwing-origins
I always hated that game, glad my hate is justified
Yep. When people treat reality like it's a zero-sum game, we all lose.
@@starbird3939 I guess flipping the board was a good stand in for sudden radical change. Like a depression, natural disaster or, nuclear annihilation. It could happen at any moment and could even be spurred on by the petty decisions of the player or maybe an "accident"
@@outerheaven155
That's my attitude, enjoy the now cuz there might not be a later.
Hope for the best plan for the worst.
Many (if not most) "social" games these days are not remotely social. Their social component amounts to forcing people to play with complete strangers to compete in contrived competitive scenarios, while fighting for meaningless rewards, along with lootboxes and microtransactions and pay-to-win design.
A real "social" game was vanilla SWG. It was a game designed to be interdependent, similar to the functioning of a real society, and people voluntarily chose professions like being an entertainer or a politician or a crafter. Some running entire businesses within the game, managing player-run cities, etc.
When I think of "social interaction" in a game, that's the standard for me. Not pugs. Not forced social interaction as part of a game that is clearly a single-player game at its core.
But I know that nowadays, the AAA industry would wreck something like vanilla SWG. They would find ways to nickle and dime it, and turn an interdependent system within the game into a monetized, real-world-money system. And more and likely they just would never make something like that again because it's not easy enough to monetize.
So when they talk about "social interaction," I just call total BS. They don't care about social interaction in games. They care about peer pressure as a tool for selling goods to people.
Ugh! Juicy Smolet burger! Gimme!
@AlienMagi You have to be trolling. It would take you 3 seconds to type SWG into google and find out if you don't know. And you call me lazy.
@@TransparentLabyrinth Stadtwerke Gießen: Konzern
@@Butzebaer No problem. I'm happy to give the name when asked. It stands for Star Wars Galaxies, an old MMORPG that was discontinued some years back. The common term used for the version of it before it went through any major changes is SWG pre-CU, referring to the state of the game before the "Combat Upgrade" changes to the game that revamped the combat system and the NGE ("New Game Enhancement") changes that later followed that (the NGE being a much more sweeping set of changes that, among other things, consolidated the 36 or so professions into a streamlined 9, including making Jedi a starter profession).
If you ever hear people talking about the game and its changes, those are probably the most important things to know about it.
Andrew Wilson is a greedy souless robot sent from the future.
So he's a terminator.
That's an insult to terminators everywhere
A Terminator, but instead of killing John Connor, he just fucks with the game industry.
Lord Crydon no wonder he fit right in EA
Andrew wilson is the real live greedy scrooge mcduck
"Suspected robot, Andrew Wilson"
EA: Goddamit, who leaked that?!?!
Bobby Kotick and Andrew Wilson are world's first mammals to be also invertebrates.
I mean you could just call him Android Wilson like jim said and not even notice the difference lol
EA? Oh... I haven't bought one of their titles in years, forgot they existed.
*dives back into Medal of Honor Pacific Assault*
I know this is a drum that has been beaten thousands of times... but I'm going to beat on that drum again.
*#BoycottEA*
Been on it for over a decade. Thought they were changing their tune at one point, they wanted to stop being known as the worst company of all time. I had my reservations about that, and it's only become more transparent over time. It's not that they don't want to be bad, it's that they don't want the consequences of it (especially financial).
Pokermask, exactly! Fuck EA!
You think EA is aware enough to not just shut down basically all their developers before they realize they might be the problem.
Yes but not just EA... Take Two, Epic, Ubisoft... all triple-A companies would need to die before gaming could return to the niche pastime we want it to be.
Last time I bought an EA game it was Burnout. That too was probably bootlegged.
I don't pay $60 to effectively rent a game, EA.
Don't worry, that cost is going to go up.
@@leadpaintchips9461 We pay $80 in Canada, now
Then... don't :)
@@VancouverCanucksRock well you also make more in Canada as well. So it's the same price as us
@@cactusman1771 and how many actually work for that entry level wage? Plus, how many different Taxes do you pay on your purchases? Where I am, we pay 2
See what Andrew doesn't understand is yes we want horror, strategy, and single player games we just want them to be good which is a concept beyond Andrew Wilson's comprehension.
I think you're hitting on a very important point here: Horror/Strategy/Single-player are all genres that only work if they're really well designed, have lots of effort put in, and are self-sufficient in general.
Bean-counting corporate entities don't want to make them, because why would they spend effort and resources crafting something like that when they could just churn out some vapid multiplayer/social game where they only have to build half the product at less than half the cost, and the people playing make up the other half?
For multiplayer games, players are part of the content, and the corporates fucking love that, since not only do they not have to pay to add this content to their game, the content will actually pay _them_.
And that's why everyone plays only MMORPGs.
Oh wait.
No they don't!
Manored that was my impression of that first paragraph. He’s literally just describing the MMO. This idea isn’t new, it’s old. There is most certainly a lucrative market for those kinds of games, but that market isn’t that big.
People played MMOs! ...a decade or so ago...
MMOs have their place, and there's a point to be made in people signing up for a game that offers what basically seems to be an endless stream of unending content.
BUT if that's what these companies were ACTUALLY offering instead of a bunch of shitty random chances to artificially pad out the lengths of their games, then this topic wouldn't even be a thing right now, would it? They don't want to take the money they make and pump it back into the game like any other MMO Developer would, they just want to flood people's experiences down with BS that nobody cares about and random chances to keep their 'fans' around until they can make a quick buck and keep on milking things.
There's just such an entire world of difference between those two things that it's not even funny.
@@dracocrusher MMOs indeed have their place, I was pointing out that games that allow people to be massively social already exist and yet they aren't the biggest thing in gaming... therefore he is wrong.
CEOs want everyone to play only those games.
Android Wilson: This is how the game industry is gonna be
Entire game industry: No, no it isn't...
If you even consider that his starting point is a false equivalency (we got along pretty well without live services helping 'social interaction' in games such as Counterstrike and Starcraft), most of what he says is pure drivel. But it's not for us gamers or the dev side of the game industry really. He wouldn't be referencing baseball cards if this was about that side. It's management jargon aimed at boomers, i.e. his corporate allies and shareholders and the style smacks of obfuscation and spin. It kinda makes you wonder what is going on behind closed doors that Wilson has to do one of those rare interviews and spew nothing but stories of 'how much gamers apparently want constant social interaction'. It's almost as if someone has slowly started questioning whether this live service gig has any longevity and whether or not those live service games have any reliable staying power.
Actually, it was a legal requirement in China to always list win chance percentages. That is why EA did it with FIFA, so they could release the game in China.
Nomadski
Everything that came out of his mouth was either a blatant lie, a highly warped interpretation of facts, or completely misinformed. The fact that he would lie about the win percentages surprises no one I’m sure.
*finds out Chinese hackers use endless free lootboxes*
As an anti-social introvert I will say that one of the thing I'm looking forward to when playing a videogame is to not have any kind of interaction with any other kind of living being in any way whatsoever.
Same! I play games to wind DOWN from interacting with people!
Looks like I have found my people.
What's up, fellow introverts? 🖐️
But, don't you just love the idea of every game having the fun-filled, family-friendly community of a Battlefield game? Dragon's Age with Trolls! A new Mass Effect with Trolls! The Sims, with Trolls! Those sports games I hate, with more Trolls! And all of this wrapped up in planned obsolescence and surprise wallet shrinking. Amazing. I can't wait!
@@JumblyJumble Just trolls? Did you forget teh incels? the Racist nutjobs? the homophobes? The unhinged fanatics? the 12 year-old no supervision kids? The 'you're doing it wrong' twits that think they know better? The me-first fuckers who are under the delusion that they alone are competent? There are so many great people to interact with online!... Those were sarcastic thoughts!
@@branimirstoilov8640 EA: "You're absolutely right. There are so many wonderful people to communicate with over the internet which is why we aim to build communal and competitive gaming experiences that allow you to socially interact with other players so you can engage with the content we provide in the most compelling and lucrative ways possible. Also so you can develop envy and spend money on a randomizer. That too."
As a person who plays single player (or rarely couch Co op) games almost exclusively the excuses they comes up with for adding more (and continuing to have) loot boxes/surprise boxes/microtransactions sounds absolutely *laughable*.
I guarantee people would play many shittier but fun games without £90 spent on loot boxes to get the glittery fancy skins or weapons they've gated behind money.
Same.
For the last 7 years I almost only played indie/less known/older games, just because I feel no longer attracted by the vast majority of AAA games.
If every game will become a live service I think I'll just stop playing
@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 at least indie games are still fine and there's cd projekt red
@@Rifky809 true
@@Rifky809 A part of me wishes though that there are more pro consumer companies, especially big ones like CDPR but they are very hard to come by nowadays.
Everything Wilson says is the reason why i have not bought an EA game in over a decade and will continue to not buy any EA games even if the game they are making is my "dream game"
but...but..every one of their games is your dream game.
don't believe me, just ask them...
/s
you know at least with trading cards YOU ACTUALLY OWN THE THING YOU BOUGHT!
Yes, and that also means it has real value - i.e. you can re-sell it.
And can potentially trade the cards with someone who might have something of equal or greater value, a majority of these games you can’t trade the skins or resell them if you don’t like them. And once they pull the plug on those servers you’re stuck with them, you’ve spent money on a dead game and dead skins
That's why I say that Yu-Gi-Oh is the best thing that Konami is doing.
Corporate CEOs caring about their consumers is a fallacy. They care only about their share holders because that is their job. Make the business profitable for the shareholders at all costs.
But if you don't focus on the people buying the product, won't you eventually drive off that group causing your profits to free fall?
@@novaiscool1
Yup. But many CEOs, especially the ones at EA, don't actually care about the long term, all they care about is getting that financial number as high as possible for the next quarter, regardless of what harm it does to the company overall.
It's like the Bestfriends said on their new podcast, if you cook a frog in a pot slowly then it won't jump out because it'll get used to the water. But these guys don't think about how to make sure they keep the frog in, they just look at the frog in the pot and think "Yeah, we can just skip from step 1 to step 18 and eat the frog now!" and then they just dump everything into what to do when the frog's cooked before they even know if it's going to stay in the pot!
It doesn't matter how much they can make long-term, they just see a button on their desk that says 'free money' and companies like EA will spam that button as hard and fast as possible no matter how risky it is. And then they'll actively lie about touching it at all the instant hitting that button becomes a bad thing to people, because that's exactly where their mind is here. It's 100% just focused on how much they can do in the now until things go wrong, and then it turns to course-correcting just to get people to shut up so they can go right back to what they were doing.
That's why it's so important for people to call them out on this. Because the moment people forget that they've done this crap and they find a way to slip it under the radar, then that becomes the moment that EA wins and the consumers lose-out. Just look how shitty their Sports titles have become for direct proof of that.
@@novaiscool1 EA knows they can do essentially whatever they want and people will still buy their big titles. Even with all the bad publicity and lack-luster reviews BF5 still sold ~7million copies and we all know what fifa is. Anthem has been an outlier for EA really.
@@m13579k
The only thing I've heard about BF5 is "But they put girls in WWII, so it's bad!" which, if anything, felt like something that would make people want to buy the game more because people like playing female characters.
Not exactly the type of thing I'd say is up there with the worst EA has done. Oh no, a game isn't historically accurate... what a disaster....
Interviewer: "How do you see the future of video games?"
Andrew Wilson: "BEEP BEEP BEEP MONEY MONEY BEEP BEEP MONEY MONEY"
I look forward to this glorious future utopia where I no longer buy video games and just find another hobby.
Hey, thats a disservice to actually good indie games and cdpr and id games
@@randomguy6679 And yet EA is fighting so hard for this exact outcome- where they have all the control and power and not enough audience to maintain their empire.
EA is fighting for their own self destruction in the name of profits.
Tragically, they will take bystanders out with them.
Fight that future.
@@randomguy6679 As if cdpr are actually innocent, they treat their workers just as badly.
@@brandonontama2415 According to rumor and anonymous employee reports which you should take with a grain of salt. Those can be fabricated in any number of ways and no one would truly know since they're anonymous n' all. I wouldn't make accusations till we have more legit info.
As for me, yeah it be indies and I'd just keep collecting older games that're fun. Still plenty out there.
@@sethbritton6970 The market will speak for EA failure. The more scummy their practice is, the worst each game they release after it will get til no one will want to touch them like that Firm that went bankrupt because of their involvement in the 08 market crash.
honestly as gamers, as consumers we need a lobbying group against this sort of fuckery. if the industry wants to push this hard we have to band together and push back.
Let's start a Facebook group or something
@@manwithoutmercy i was thinking bigger than that, band together big names and organizations to push back, EEF, Jim Sterling, Ross Scott, Sidalpha, upper echelon gaming etc etc. get an advocacy group
It'll be co-opted and used against you. It'll speak for you things you decidedly would not speak. That's how these things work.
@@daniellekohler1914 Those are the only two options?
@@Aeroxima what would you suggest?
"nobody likes sigleplayer anymore!"
Meanwhile Dad Of Boy continues to be amazing and Skyrim launches on game console #71,991
And BOTW 2 is getting developed for another GOTY
@@haruhisuzumiya6650 Not to mention Nintendo balances singleplayer and multiplayer modes.
Also Mario Oddyesy sells 15 million in less than a year
Right and that's why cyberpunk 2077 is the most anticipated game ever.
I only pre-ordered CP because of all the lootboxes and social interaction I am gonna get there...
I dunno, Gamestop said the new CoD was the most pre-ordered game they had during E3.
The second most from E3 was Final Fantasy Remake. Yeah I don't think these one time purchase games are dead as the industry tries to say.
I want to draw attention to something he said in that second quote.
".....that broader network value that I have as a player."
If the man were actually a gamer, he would understand how absolutely ridiculous his argument is at its core.
Always online, account regulated, non-player game ownership is huge trouble and hacker heaven.
Keep the word "we" out of your mouth Andrew. I doubt you've played a video game in your entire life.
This is what pisses me off. These cunts who've never even so much as held a controller, talking about the industry as if they know. Like all CEOs, the moment games aren't as profitable he's going to jump ship to whatever industry is trending. I wish games never went mainstream. companies at e3 actually have the gall to present phone games. 10 years ago, they would have been booed off the stage.
He probably played Dungeon Keeper Mobile and CnC Rivals while on the shitter...
Just like politicians who say they know what it's like to be poor and hungry. Bullshit.
Hey! Hey, hey, hey...
I'm sure he plays candy crush.
He's probably played a few mobile games and then goes, "Guys, why aren't we monetizing like this?!?"
To paraphrase Fight Club, if I had a tumor, I'd name it EA.
yes
They are already a cancer of the game industry.
You can't spell "cancer" without "EA"
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise(mechanics).
_"Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next products."_
- Jay Bauman, 2018
That's right, Jay.
So EA is basically becoming the Ruthless Konglomerate Megacorp from Stellaris:
„Every successful economy is built upon an endless cycle of repetition, where we sell you the empty promise of happiness and fulfillment and unfulfilled as ever, you still come back for more.“
How about you can access my money then. And when you close the servers, you'll give me my money back
You and i both know thats not gonna happen
Hahaha yeah, but actually no...
This is the best come back
EA?
Giving refunds?
Funny joke.
Every time I see Android Wilson I see the death of pre-owned games through his dead robot eyes.
Christ the night, the 'Android Wilson' jokes really don't overstate the case. It's easy to write off his... erm... 'rhetorical style,' as corporate-speak but, honestly, as someone who hears plenty of corporate-speak as part of his day-job, I've never heard it sound so much like a programmer has tried to beat the Turing Test over the course of one incredibly drunken weekend. If anything, we've got to the point where saying he sounds like a robot is doing a disservice to modern AI.
I'm ready for the triple-AAAAYYYYE bubble to burst
At this point i can't wait till it does.
Along with this LIVE SERVICES bullshit.
I've been ready for years mate
Gamers: "Can't wait for the bubble to burst!"
Gamers during every E3, PAX, [insert convention]: "HYPE! Take my money!"
Good luck waiting for the burst.
@@saranghae1saranghae oh believe you me, that shit annoys me worse than anything. But FO76 broke me on new releases and I'm committed to it. I just hope, gradually, more and more people will get there too. ET for the atari didn't happen at the beginning of that bubble
I find it funny that game companies are trying to dictate what we want.
Players "demand" social interaction.
That's not what we want, yet they insist on saying that's what we want.
"You think you do but you don't," is a Footnotes summary of that thought process.
When big publishers, especially EA tell gamers what they want, you have to realize they're using the wrong terminology. They think gamers and these people who keep playing and spending on live services are the same thing. They label us all "gamers". They don't realize that these other people are a new breed, not gamers, a completely different target audience. We really need a name for them. "Engagers" is the obvious one but I dunno man.
@@Chromodar "Engagers" sounds So much better than Whales. Engagers give real Whales a bad rep. ;)
To be fair, gamers do need and care about social interaction. And I can say that with confidence because without other gamers pointing out what a scummy mess EA's games have become, they might have actually gotten away with all of this shit!
So congrats to social interaction for not letting these morons run everything into the ground with their shit-circus of terrible decisions.
@@dracocrusher Yeah man, the only positive thing to come out of all this is the sense of community it builds among the people who are opposed.
The Triple A doing their best to be a common enemy that gamers can unite against.
I have no Facebook, I have no Twitter, I have no Snapchat, infact I don't use any social media account that would require or show my own personal information inorder to access it and I sure as hell don't play any game for social experience of online play; I play them for personal interactive experience, for stories and fun innovative gameplay and so far I haven't gotten any of that to satisfactory degree from what few online games I've tried out over the years.
And this is why I haven't bought any games from EA since latest Mirror's Edge. Not only are they're business practices downright disgusting, but they simply don't make any games anymore, that I would give zero fuks about.
Wilson is just another executive who moved into gaming from packaged goods since there is less oversight of the business. AAA gaming is the newest incarnation of the used car salesman.
Nothing kills my desire for social interaction in games quicker than 15 minutes of playing with randoms.
Dude this Anthem gameplay footage has nice graphics.
They definitely downgraded for consoles
Name of the game .?
Andrew Wilson is just SHODAN's weird uncle that nobody invites to the family reunions anymore
There's something with his face, it doesn't seem real....
@@maxhell4033 Dude looks like Handsome Jack
😂🖤
@@LazyBastard69 Came to say this
Ralph Außerbauer Yeah, but people actually like Handsome Jack.
0:10 yo anthems looking pretty good, did they update it?
I know right? I enjoy the freedom of not being bound by worldly principles, physics, or logic. There is just infinite and boundless space for full-core engagement, player choice, and optimized player access.
@@TealWolf26 hahahaha
It doesn’t look THAT bad 😂
Companies comparing lootboxes to physical card packs/random prize boxes continues to infuriate me. Because, yes, we probably could have a discussion about more regulation in the physical lootbox space!
But at the end of the day, you *actually receive a physical item you own* when you open a physical card pack. AND there's a market-controlled limit on how many whales there can be, because, since this is a physical card, you can always simply buy it on the open market from another player/collector rather than throwing the dice on card packs.
"Kiss trading cards"
This is such peak boomerposting I'm not even mad.
It's really telling that he references that though. Like...damn. That took me back. Used to make fun of that one kid who actually, unironically, bought some of those cards.
@@arkitektbmw those cards are still out there somewhere... anthem servers will be down in 5 or 8 (max) years.
@@VM-hl8ms that's being very generous lol.
@@VM-hl8ms try 1 year
@@VM-hl8ms at this rate, months
With the amount of times that Jim talks in his "Corporate" voice, I'm surprised his voice doesn't stay that way.
SERIOUSLY, how has Jim not got a million subscribers?!?!?! His content is Great!
He deserves way, WAY more!
"Live services" and "Cloud gaming" will see the return of MMO type subscriptions just to get access to what we already have now for free.
Horde as much physical media as you can Ladies and Gent's because gaming is about to become way more expensive.
time to go back to playing solitaire, manually.
I've already played enough games in my life, I can ether sit on my steam backlog. Or just say screw it, I don't need to buy any new games anymore. I'm getting too old for this shit anyway. Not gaming, just the Drama of the games industry.
I migrated from getting AAA games to buying mostly indie or aa games a long time ago
On top of the cost for your ISP as well. What a sick joke.
They say "Gaming" is supposed to be a luxury pastime... Which is why countries like Australia pay four times more than anywhere else.
*spit* that's bullsh!t i say!!
It has genres, stories and music. Pretty much anything and everything you imagine can be put into game.
Gaming is the ultimate art form... Short of bending reality to your will.
If this is where the game industry is heading, we will see a great new wave of piracy. As much as if Valve completely went under I might lose it, I still feel I own the games in my Steam library. I DO NOT want games on a subscription service whatsoever. GoG has the best model (similar to Bandcamp for music) but just not as much to offer (I guess also similar to Bandcamp)
Lets be honest ubisoft, ea, google and the rest of them are not going to take over the game streaming service model as long as microsoft keep giving it away. EA has a venomous image that makes it even harder for them to takeover and unlike console streaming services they are clearly making a bias platform which lets be even more honest doesnt even work for porn sites.
Efreeti cable TV programs did something like this in the past, you cannot buy a perpetual license to watch shows whenever and wherever since they weren’t released on a physical disk. Most of them are only available through a cable subscription.
You can't pirate what you can't download. That's the idea here, you're checkmated. You don't get a choice, can talk pirating as much as you want, but they've finally found a DRM you can't crack and of course they're ready to go all-in on that.
@Ultmateluigiman You're sounding legitimately like a villain at this point. A boycott sounds a lot better than DDOS. If people willingly pay for their junk, it's not really your place to go on the offense.
@@Aeroxima I agree with you, however what ultmateluigiman says about DDOS probably will happen at least in the beginning. There will e little groups that hold the streaming services offline as means to try and force thier hand but it won't work. even if you cost them 100million$ in losses they'd eat that if it meant when the servers come back on they get a billion$ in revenue.
EA: You don't own games you access them.
Me: Buys Physical copies.
EA: Wait, that's illegal.
EA: [laughs in online activation]
I like playing competitively with faceless strangers....but i don't want to talk to them thank you.
Hold on, Volleyball Wilson. Have you ever actually socially interacted with a gamer you don’t know? You expect me to pay MONEY for that?
This is why I'm glad I enjoy older games.
There's plenty of old DS and 3DS titles I still need, and I have a pretty good library to keep playing.
This is why I like them, they can't force me to play with others and I own those games. And of course I just love the games. This BS can piss off.
They still don't understand that there is no perfect pasta sauce. Only perfect pasta sauces.
Man, I can't wait until Hollow Knight Silksong. It has the amount social interactivity I enjoy - all outside the game.
Me too. And fun. I can't wait for fun. That's what I like to anticipate.
Access over ownership - buying a new car full price yet its gonna stay the property of the car dealer ... the gaming industry needs to crash for this
That kinda reminds me of the time I wanted to buy a little kitten. The thing was beautiful. 400€ was quite expensive, but it was beautiful. Up to the point, when I read the contract of ownership, that essentially gave the organisation, that sold the cat, the right, to come and get it back, without refunding the spent money, whenever they decide to do so. Needless to say we did not buy the kitten.
EA: "don't ask question, just consume product and get excited for next products"
Devolver: "buy our shittie vidyo gaems"
I do enjoy that they make amazing games but make their pr into a parody of AAA companies because they know what's going on with the industry.
Love that they made bootleg compilation for their own games
noice the nerd crew reference over the boi
@@pakapata it's always going to be fresh with how often EA is on there bullshit
@@jolynekujobackfromprison744 i still think that there press conference for this year is perfect, since they did there own 'Nintendo direct'