@skyline5gtr: I know. But you'd think they'd want to protect their reputation.
I'm not sure there's anything more frustrating than wanting to do a leisure activity, and finding out you can't because the game servers are down, or there's DRM and your internet is down, or any such technical problem. It tends to evoke the same kind of anger in some people that driving does. I wonder why that is....
These DDoS attacks are seemingly becoming more prevalent, not just with EA. These guys need to invest some time and resources in figuring out a way to defend against them.
As for the game, this is the first Battlefield game I'm interested in playing. 32v32 on detailed WW1 maps? Sounds awesome!
@dlCHIEF58: Those examples don't mean anything to me, because I don't care about them. My biggest gripe was always DLC and micro-transactions, exploitative as they are. I've always found EA has some of the least bang for the buck in their DLC, and their continued focus on these methods of generating revenue continue to turn me off them.
It's an industry-wide problem and it's becoming very difficult to find a truly player-centric publisher.
Yes, it's ridiculous that EA was named Worst Company. But there is still more than "a kernel of truth" to that.
Despite this supposed "player-first" initiative, I haven't seen any improvement. Which leads me to believe that EA has no actual idea why they were voted worst (or more likely don't care). Moore's statements are the biggest pile of steaming PR bullshit I've read in awhile. It's not about revenue? Uh huh. Putting the player at the center? Not likely.
They're all sitting in a boardroom rubbing their hands together in glee about all the money they're making off selling what should have been parts of their main games as separate DLCs and micro-transactions.
EA never used to be on my shit list. But starting roughly five years ago, they just did one thing after another that pissed me off, starting with ridiculously-priced DLCs. As far as I can tell, they've doubled down on that crap. So at least MY opinion of them won't be changing anytime soon.
@thebloodeagle: While I don't completely agree with you, I just wanted to say it's nice to get a dissenting opinion/clarification that isn't derogatory in nature. Let me try to clarify what I meant:
(1) & (2) are red flags because it depicts the challenges they face. It shows how generating plentiful missions of high detail is time-consuming. And it also shows how they still have some tech challenges to overcome. I'm not saying they'll fail, I'm just saying it's a concern.
(3) I understand it's an alpha and perhaps this isn't really a red flag. But again, on a project of this magnitude, it represents a challenge.
(4) I hope so. Just found it odd that they flew through there. I imagine there will be some kind of protected space around hub areas on remote planets. And they'll probably have to completely protect well-populated planets like Terra or Earth.
(5) Maybe it was unfair of me to label this as a red flag. To be quite honest, I don't expect the procedurally generated stuff to be equal in fidelity to the points of interest. It does seem counter to Chris's vision though. I can't wait to see the 2.0 stuff.
I tend to be a skeptic. Don't let that fool you; I'm definitely rooting for this game!
BigDegs' comments