This is a perfect example of how stock investors are often clueless about what is truly going on with a company and their customers. Sure, profits are up but as frustration grows with EA, long term investors are going to be sorely disappointed if and when gamers truly rise up and quit supporting the drivel from this company.
@Keaze_ @TheBatFreak777 Hey, no worries. Even if you were being sarcastic I'm cool with that. :)
That is quite surprising about Kotick. That is a stupid amount of money. That makes me even more annoyed. It's disgusting actually.
The thing I can't understand is just how out of touch people like Kotick can get. In their high floor offices it's like that have absolutely no clue what the general population wants. I mean, all they have to do is go to sites like this or IGN and spend some time in articles about their products to realize they are massively hated. I just couldn't operate like that in the work world.
@Keaze_ @TheBatFreak777 I'll admit, I'm not sure if this was a personal slam or not. ??? I do have a PC. (but also a PS3) I also enjoy playing single player campaigns. Was it a slam? I don't know.
Ultimately, I'll admit that I continue to struggle with playing some of these titles even though I might not want to support the publisher/developer. My choice in these matters is simply to not purchase the games at retail or in any fashion that would allow the publisher/developer to gain money from me. While I'm only one person, I do feel that if everyone who is annoyed by these company antics should put their money where their mouth is and quit supporting things we disagree with.
Yet, on the other hand, I also can say that I do believe there is some value in these titles. However, just not at the retail prices these companies charge. Many of these types of titles are DLC at best and their pricing should be reflected in that. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. So, if I do happen to play games from these types of developers it is always the case that I won't buy at retail or in any way that directly benefits the developer/publisher.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that companies need to make profit in order to survive and grow. However, the question is what is an acceptable profit margin on a game? I also recognize that some games make massive profit to compensate for lower profit, or even loss, on other games. Yet, when looking at development costs compared to profits, it seems that some of this is stupidly out of whack.
As I mentioned in another post, the only way these publishers will learn is if we don't buy their games. Since their focus is only on profit we have to hit them in a way that will affect their profits so they @#^$@#^ get the point. It appears that this is happening with these series and, hopefully, the COD and BF series will follow.
Don't get me wrong, I see value in these types of games but just not at the price they are selling at. Did I play Crysis 3? Yes. Did I play Dead Space 3? Yes. Did I pay full retail? Absolutely not and I never will as long as the impression is that all they care about is profit and scamming us out of our money at every turn. Until they start respecting and listening to their customers it is stupid of us to support them at the level they want.
Related to this, I won't buy games at GameSpot because though the publisher doesn't get the money, I also know that GameSpot doesn't give a @#^#^ about their customers either. They too only care about profit.
I will use eBay, Amazon, and any other option available to avoid paying for these games at retail prices.
I wish the real world worked like EA. This is a great lesson for kids. If you suck terribly, get crowned the worst company, you can still get something everyone covets. Man, I'd love to do terrible at my job all week, skip work the next, and then get a raise upon my return. :(
What bothers me most is that from a previous new anchor we get an extremely biased piece. I mean, whether you're talking politics, religion, video games and violence, etc, anyone can find the "exception" to support their cause:
1. Al Qaeda "proves" that Islam is a horrible religion. No, they are radicals. 2. The guy who burns Korans "proves" that Christianity is stupid. No, he's a radical. 3. A guy who says he was violent, in part, due to video games "proves" that gaming creates violence. No, he is in the minority as an extremely low number of people kill people.
I wish for the sake of reasonable intelligence people would step up and practice the things taught to them in school. Yet, we show that it doesn't matter how great a university you get to attend or what type of "respectable" job you get, everyone will surrender mindful thought for things more desirable.
I'll admit, what I think is a bit interesting is that with this trailer they demonstrated that they know all about the different types of fighters that have existed in history. You'd think some where in the discussion someone might have thought, "Hey, we're getting lots of complaints about all our games being the same. You think we could make a game about one of these other groups?"
The name Call of Duty, technically, does not only have to relate to the modern era. Why not throw us a unique curve ball and make a game based farther back in history. ??? They could totally make a million different games from a million different battles.
Assassin's Creed showed that games can be made within a historical context and people will play them. Why not try it?
TheBatFreak777's comments