gamesguru Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 ^Either cbc are really stupid; or that's some imaginative editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erados Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 ^Either cbc are really stupid; or that's some imaginative editing. I did it in a rush, there's only like 2 grammar mistakes, I think. I forgot a period after the first inc. and the mummification reference on the right has a lopsided second n. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamesguru Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 ^Either cbc are really stupid; or that's some imaginative editing. I did it in a rush, there's only like 2 grammar mistakes, I think. I forgot a period after the first inc. and the mummification reference on the right has a lopsided second n. Nice. I was wondering why it was a link to an image . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Se7oOo0 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Motherf*cker monsters R.I.P Grand Theft Auto - You were the greatest game ever. FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ac1d665 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I hope DMA design makes a second coming to make a surprise ending to the bible. This sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opium_addict Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 It will be the day i stop buying the GTA series. Why? Only because EA is the most terrible, monopolizing, money-hungry piece of sh*t company in the world today. They could have avoided this reputation but their actions have dictated otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talakua Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 According to this EA have abandoned the takeover. I dont weather to believe it or not, theres so many different things flying around at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitoryu12 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Motherf*cker monsters R.I.P Grand Theft Auto - You were the greatest game ever. FTW! Wow, Sergi was right. Only 1 in 100 members have any sense here whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opium_addict Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Wow, Sergi was right. Only 1 in 100 members have any sense here whatsoever. You will need to elaborate yourself, he had a simple way of putting it sure but i still agree with his array of smilies EA has proven time, and time AND TIME again that all they care about is turning profit. I'd love to see how the modding scene declines if EA were to take over, sh*t...in fact i wouldn't expect a GTA-PC release at all, judging from their new Battlefield game (Bad Company). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike752 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 It's eventually going to be EA vs Activision. Just wait. I just hope that R* will break off from T2 before this merger happens. If not, then there will be the EA logo plastered all over the next GTA. No more made up cars, there will be real cars instead. No more fake vulgar brand names, there will be names like McDonalds, Sharp, Ford, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opium_addict Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Yes, sadly ingame ads are the watermark of an EA game. Bad Company has tropic thunder in its online xbox-live maps.... So, about $60 for the game itself, another $50 for xbox-live, and i have to see dumbass ads about that sh*tty movie with ben stiller. Great marketing EA.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitoryu12 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I just love how not only does nobody listen to me, but nobody uses any sense in thinking of a partnership. Even if it did happen (which I seriously doubt), EA will not mess with the game in a way that alienates its target audience. It's extraordinarily obvious that most fans would refuse to buy their games if the quality is lowered. It would be a massive loss of profits. Another thing is that you all think they'll use all real-word brands for everything. Not going to happen. It costs money to place a real product in your games. Due to licensing fees, that's also why EA continues to use fake names for their guns in the James Bond series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opium_addict Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I just love how not only does nobody listen to me, but nobody uses any sense in thinking of a partnership. Even if it did happen (which I seriously doubt), EA will not mess with the game in a way that alienates its target audience. It's extraordinarily obvious that most fans would refuse to buy their games if the quality is lowered. It would be a massive loss of profits. Another thing is that you all think they'll use all real-word brands for everything. Not going to happen. It costs money to place a real product in your games. Due to licensing fees, that's also why EA continues to use fake names for their guns in the James Bond series. No, no, you don't seem to understand. First of all, the quality of the game would be instantly lowered for the reasons i stated above. Secondly, he said they would use "real-world brands" because EA likes to put ingame ads in their game everywhere, it was a joke (which is sadly not far from the truth). And as for the fake gun names in the bond series, thats because gun retailers aren't really willing to pay EA for ingame ads presumably (maybe they dont want to be affiliated with mass-murder? idk). In any case, EA uses some VERY BAD business practices, ingame ads, anti-piracy (which interferes with peoples software already installed on the computer, forcing you to uninstall the programs or not play the game (such as daemon tools, which i actually use for LEGAL applications)) and last but certainly NOT least, they would much rather turn a massive console profit then EVER release to the PC. The only games they release to the PC are bloated with ads and protections i mentioned above. In my opinion Take-Two doesn't need any help, especially after the release of GTA4 which probably made them somewhere near the hundreds of millions by now; and judging by GTA4, they didn't need help previous to GTA4 either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erados Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Another thing is that you all think they'll use all real-word brands for everything. Not going to happen. It costs money to place a real product in your games. Due to licensing fees, that's also why EA continues to use fake names for their guns in the James Bond series. Lol? Do you not think McDonalds will pay heavily for a chance to replace Burger Shot? Or perhaps you think Coca Cola wouldn't like that mean popular video game played by millions to replace Sprunk with Sprite? Licensing was never mentioned here. Nobody cares about licensing in this case. They meant advertising. You've spent a lot of time making some pretty good points in this thread, but I think now the extreme point of view you're taking (that you refuse to believe whatsoever that EA might be bad for the GTA series) is becoming a bit stale and taking over the logic part of your brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erados Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 But a lot of companies would. There's more people who play GTA than there are those who have extremely negative feelings towards the game and would boycott a product because of where it was advertised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitoryu12 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 First of all, the quality of the game would be instantly lowered for the reasons i stated above. But you haven't yet proven that EA would even do that. Secondly, he said they would use "real-world brands" because EA likes to put ingame ads in their game everywhere,it was a joke (which is sadly not far from the truth). EA isn't made up of retards. They know when it's appropriate to put in ads and when it isn't. And as for the fake gun names in the bond series, thats because gun retailers aren't really willing to pay EA for ingame ads presumably (maybe they dont want to be affiliated with mass-murder? idk). Who said anything about ads? The developers stated during the production of an older Bond game (I believe The World is Not Enough) that they didn't want to pay licensing fees to call the guns by their real names. EA did it once for Everything or Nothing, which was produced at such a high quality it was practically a movie anyway and they were pouring as much cash as they could into it. They reverted back during From Russian With Love. Also, how would they be affiliated with mass murder if their guns are used in a Bond game? James Bond is hardly a mass murderer, and they had no problem letting the GTA series use their gun names in previous games. Just as well, you need to learn your terms. Gun retailers are gun shops, not manufacturers. In any case, EA uses some VERY BAD business practices, ingame ads, anti-piracy (which interferes with peoples software already installed on the computer, forcing you to uninstall the programs or not play the game (such as daemon tools, which i actually use for LEGAL applications)) and last but certainly NOT least, they would much rather turn a massive console profit then EVER release to the PC. EA has released plenty of games on the PC. If they're interested in turning any sort of profit, they would do so. Moreover, the stupid DRM is being implemented in ONE EA title, Spore. Mass Effect is the only other one, and it's published by Microsoft. You seem to think that EA is so obsessed with making money on consoles that they'll perform bad business decisions that would alientate massive amounts of fans and greatly lower both their revenue and give them a worse reputation, making business with other companies much harder. The EA executives aren't robots with a one-track mind. The only games they release to the PC are bloated with ads and protections i mentioned above. Like The Sims and SimCity? Oh wait..... In my opinion Take-Two doesn't need any help, especially after the release of GTA4 which probably made them somewhere near the hundreds of millions by now; and judging by GTA4, they didn't need help previous to GTA4 either. Nobody ever said they did. They just said that their games would be improved by EA's extra funding. Lol? Do you not think McDonalds will pay heavily for a chance to replace Burger Shot? Or perhaps you think Coca Cola wouldn't like that mean popular video game played by millions to replace Sprunk with Sprite? Of course they would. But why haven't they done it already? Think a bit on that and call back later. Licensing was never mentioned here. Nobody cares about licensing in this case. They meant advertising. It still costs money. McDonalds, Coca Cola, and the like aren't going to just let themselves be portrayed for free. They never have and never will. You've spent a lot of time making some pretty good points in this thread, but I think now the extreme point of view you're taking (that you refuse to believe whatsoever that EA might be bad for the GTA series) is becoming a bit stale and taking over the logic part of your brain. Kid, I'm probably using more logic than you ever have on this thread. You still haven't actually come up with valid reasons as to why EA would make horrible business decisions just because they could do it with lower-key games like Battlefield 2142. Show me why they would potentially ruin a massive cash cow, and maybe I'll believe you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmm chocolate Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 wow....f'n ridiculous you all are about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erados Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Of course they would. But why haven't they done it already? Think a bit on that and call back later. It still costs money. McDonalds, Coca Cola, and the like aren't going to just let themselves be portrayed for free. They never have and never will. Kid, I'm probably using more logic than you ever have on this thread. You really are an idiot. Who knows what they have and haven't done. Neither of us is privy to R*'s business dealings. You don't seem to understand the concept of advertising. People pay YOU to get the word out on THEIR product. Celebrities are paid to use certain objects because people will then go and buy what they're using. Ever seen Friends? It's about product placement. Every brand you see in popular shows like that contribute to the paychecks of the producers. "Free advertising" is a boon to companies, not a curse. They would jump at the possibility. You think big companies wouldn't love to have their names out there for free? Here's a quick taste. For more in-depth browsing of just how much money goes into advertising, check this out: http://216.139.227.101/interactive/mcd2007 That's McDonald's yearly report of all things related to money. McDonalds is a public company so it's out there for everyone to look at in leisure. On the drop-down menu, find "Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements." That should get you to page 48. Check under "Advertising costs." I know you probably can't be assed to look at it, so here's the part that will interest you most: Note the part about television production. You think these companies would make someone pay THEM to get their word out? Yeah, right. With a video game giant such as GTA, which everyone knows, they're not going to give a sh*t about what's in the game as long as their product is too. EA wouldn't mind giving that too them. You wanted logic? Edited August 22, 2008 by Erados Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioVirus Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Erados, good job, but are you really spending time to explain the mechanics of advertising? Everyone knows how it works. If you encounter someone who doesn't, remember that you are on a video game forum. There's little children here, too. Don't waste your time It's better to stay on topic, in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erados Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Erados, good job, but are you really spending time to explain the mechanics of advertising? Everyone knows how it works. If you encounter someone who doesn't, remember that you are on a video game forum. There's little children here, too. Don't waste your time It's better to stay on topic, in my humble opinion. Just wanted to show one of the children that it was wrong. I tried to get us back on topic a few posts back but when I saw that wall of text I had to respond with my own. And anyway, it wasn't as if finding that took that long anyway. Most companies have all their information right there. I might go look up EA's advertising revenue for kicks too if he has a comeback. Edit: http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/Dynami...&Page=1&Zoom=1x There it is if anyone wants to dig out. Edited August 22, 2008 by Erados Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opium_addict Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Who said anything about ads? The developers stated during the production of an older Bond game (I believe The World is Not Enough) that they didn't want to pay licensing fees to call the guns by their real names. EA did it once for Everything or Nothing, which was produced at such a high quality it was practically a movie anyway and they were pouring as much cash as they could into it. They reverted back during From Russian With Love. EA has released plenty of games on the PC. Two words. "Bad Company". Like The Sims and SimCity? Oh wait..... The Sims actually had protection, which is why i had to remove daemon tools from my friends computer completely (the driver too, yeah, its a bitch) before i could even install it (and yes he had a CD and CD keys) Kid, I'm probably using more logic than you ever have on this thread. Nuts to your self-proclaimed logic, more like EA fanboyism. It's people like you who drive me insane, proclaiming you are correct when you are the only one who thinks so. protip: the EA forums are over yonder, use google as your guide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike88 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Nothing will change, EA isn't stupid. The video game industry is just that-an industry, and T2 is a top earner. The only change we will notice will be an EA Games slide after new trailers. They know what makes Rockstar Tick, and being the great business minds that they are, they wouldn't change that. Thank you for speaking sense into these people. Of course judging by some of the mindless sheep some of these people are, they will probably buy the next GTA anyways. So true. Thats how EA got so big in the first place. Hopefully they realize that if they try to interfere with the formula that they'll f*ck it up, and just become a producer like they are with Mercs2, and with Dice's games (although they almost tried to whore out Battlefield) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamDW Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 It will be the day i stop buying the GTA series. Why? Only because EA is the most terrible, monopolizing, money-hungry piece of sh*t company in the world today. They could have avoided this reputation but their actions have dictated otherwise. what a load of fanboy bullsh*t, EA have made some quality games in the past like Skate and Bad Company, take your head out of R*s ass and pay some respect to some other companies for a change, besides if you owned a company that big wouldnt you want to get as much money as possible? Dont say no either because thats also a load of sh*t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boothy Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Remember, Portal is an EA game. no it isnt, valve made it, EA just 'endoursed' i think the word is the orange box and provided the online service for team fortress 2 on the console versions. EA was involved with burnout and skate so they're not all bad, but thats only 2 good games/brands out of 100's that EA was involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The GTA Guy Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 According to this (http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/electronic-arts-pulls-plug-on-take-two-takeover-454485) EA have abandoned the takeover. I dont weather to believe it or not, theres so many different things flying around at the moment. GREAT!!!!! AWESOME!!! EA sucks... Good they abandoned that takeover, goddamn money hungry bastards.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Bellic Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 well i only hope that take 2 will hear to us or something like that ...DONT GIVE UP ...stupid EA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ph3L1z14n0 Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 GTA IV is probably going to be the last "true" GTA. True indeed, specially since Sam Houser said that he planned IV to last for years in the same way Half-Life 2 has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Well, it's over. Take Two is going to accept a buyout from EA.... they are only ironing out the details. Not to worry, folks... EA is buying up the Saint's Row franchise! Though this might mean a better SR game in the future, that lead will soon lose it's luster as it's milked dry in every possible way! As it is well reported here EA MAKES some bad games, alright. Funny how a book publisher doesn't APPEAR to write some bad books, but if people say they do, then they do. Get REAL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Humboldt Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Some EA execs turned up to my place of work yesterday... in a limo. Twats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyk1 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I read that EA is the richest games company in the world,why on earth do they want more? it`s true that money dose go to some peoples heads(in this case a huge companys head) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now