I really don't understand you. I think there is no way to argument with you. You force an interpretation of people's words in a way they have never meant and regardless of their clear words saying that you misunderstood what they said, you continue to believe that the person meant what they didn't meant to say. You should try opening your head rather than pretending that it's a me vs you internet argument. It's impossible to argue in these conditions.
How exactly did I misunderstand you, and where exactly did you claim I did so?
That spot right there was the first time any variation of the word "misunderstand" appeared on the page.
One would think as the forum's administrator, you would know the history of the thread is right there, so making up the past doesn't quite work.
I have directly quoted you wherever I could. When I didn't react to a quote of you, I mostly focused on what you didn't say, so I can hardly have misinterpreted something you said in those cases.
The only case in which I truly do have a different "interpretation" of what you claim to be the true meaning is where your supposed meaning came as an afterthought several posts later and is entirely inconsistent with everything else you said up to that point.
In other words: The time where it looks like a cheap, implausible excuse.
I will give you this, though: Claiming that it is impossible to debate with me, in and through a paragraph that is so ripe with ad hominem attacks and unsupported revisions of history that it's impossible to use it as a basis for factual debate, is a hilarious display of hypocrisy.
Banshee wrote:
Quote:
You are changing your line of argumentation. Your claim was "nowadays modding goes against EA's business goals", not "EA doesn't support modding because modders' assets would offer free alternatives to EA's paid ones".
You missed my logic. Let's get more clear:
"nowadays modding goes against EA's business goals"because"modders' assets would offer free alternatives to EA's paid ones".
Is it clear now?
Okay, so you are revising history to claim that your independent statements were somehow magically, obviously, connected.
Fine, if it makes you happy.
It's still bullshit.
Let me -again- quote yourself: "EA's objective is to get money through any kind of thing.".
Unless you now want to go ahead and claim that I misunderstood you, and that EA's "business goals" are really esoteric shit like love, peace, unity and ham sandwiches, I'll assume we'll agree that EA's "business goals" can be summed up as "1. Make money. 2. Make more money. 3. Make even more money.".
Since I a) offered multiple ways in which allowing modding can lead to additional income for EA that would not exist if there were no mod support, and b) it is factually incorrect to pretend that all of EA's games at the moment, and all future C&C games necessarily, are Free2Play games financed by DLCs, the blanket claim "nowadays modding goes against EA's business goals" remains bullshit, even if you retcon it as "nowadays modding goes against EA's business goals because modders' assets would offer free alternatives to EA's paid ones".
And before you try to claim I misunderstood "nowadays modding goes against EA's business goals" now, and it was really (obviously!) meant to mean "nowadays modding goes against EA's business goals in regards to this very particular C&C game": My point remains valid. As long as they can make additional money either through modders directly, or through the longevity added to the game by mods, modding does not go against their business goals, neither in general nor in this particular case.
(Unless you want to retcon your understanding of EA's business goals as well.)
Your (revised) argumentation relies on the false dichotomy of "no mods at all" vs. "everything moddable and provided for free".
There is no proof or reason this should be true.
Nothing prevents EA from allowing mods, but charging for mod support on the client side, or from allowing modders to sell their assets and taking a fee, or from only allowing parts of the game to be modded and making money from mods for the rest. Hell, they could even do both: They could not allow adding weapons, but could allow changing their appearance. Then they could allow modders to make weapons look and sound cooler and distribute said mod for free, but the player would have to buy the weapon to see the effect. Maybe the original version doesn't even look cool, and the free mod is the only reason the player is even interested in buying the gun?
So many options, so many ways to make money thanks to mod support...
Banshee wrote:
Quote:
Either way, my point stands: If a player stops playing, they have zero chance of getting him to pay for anything. If the player keeps playing because a mod kept the game interesting, they still have a chance of convincing him to pay for something a mod can't or won't offer, even in your re-defined "OMG the modders compete!!"-scenario.
It is true if people stop playing it. But if it ever happens, they'll have a new product sucking more money from people who played the older products and making people to re-buy items similar to the ones they've bought to the previous games. In short, technically, they don't need modders.
So your argumentation is..."you are correct, but hey, look at this entirely different case, where the same thing doesn't apply"?
Of course they technically don't need modders. That was never up for discussion. What we were discussing was your ridiculous claim that modding goes against EA's business goals, which is nonsense.
(A claim only born because you were trying to re-frame the original discussion of whether we were represented at the "Community Summit" by interpreting "us" not as the overall group of old school C&C fans, but as C&C modders in particular, and arguing that, therefore, it was perfectly understandable EA was shunning "us".)
Banshee wrote:
There will always be people playing and buying stuff in these games. Otherwise this Free to Play platform wouldn't be expanded.
The market for Betamax was expanding, for a time. The market for HD-DVD was expanding, for a time. You cannot explore a market without trying it out, and you cannot establish a new payment model without strong reasons to use it. I'm not saying I disagree with your view of the future of F2P, I'm just pointing out it's a false cause argumentation.
Banshee wrote:
Quote:
Oh, and by the way: Don't think I didn't notice you're trying to steer the thread away from the discussion of why you giddily assisted EA in defining us out of the community.
Remove that stupid idea out of your thick head. C&C community is much larger than the sites that EA has 'selected' to represent them and we are inside the C&C community.
Congratulations. That argumentation was so absurd, I couldn't reduce it to further absurdity.
It's basically like a Republican politician announcing a "representative group" of Americans to discuss the country's issues with them, picking 1000 white, Christian parents, and then telling the blacks, Hispanics, gays and singles "Quit complaining! The US are far larger than the group I selected to represent them, you're still part of them!".
The entire point of representation is that you don't have to invite everyone, you just have to have everyone represented. So to argue that a group could not be represented, because the community is larger than the sites that did get representation, is...mind-boggling.
Seriously. We're not talking about dozens of people here. We're talking about one person. Someone like you. Someone who came into the community before TFD was released, and who still spends the majority of his community-time with the pre-Generals stuff.
One person.
You want me to believe it was logistically or financially impossible for Electronic Arts to invite one Tiberian Twilight fanboy less, and replace him with an old school C&C fan?
Because the goddamn community is too large?
Is this argumentation some kind of Kirk-esque attempt to make my head explode?
Banshee wrote:
I've never said in the news that PPM isn't part of the C&C community. You've created this meaning, not my news.
You're accusing me of putting words in your mouth...by putting words in my mouth? Cute.
I did, in fact, not claim anything like that. I just pointed out that you saw no particular reason and showed no motivation to take the tiny step of pointing out that "Community Summit" was a marketing term at best, and that said "summit" had no properties of a true community gathering, in particular because the old school section of the community was not represented. And I questioned why that was the case.
And all I got so far were ridiculous excuses, cheap attempts at re-framing or redirecting the discussion, and attempts to shut the discussion down by claiming I could somehow not be discussed with.
For god sakes, its named Community Summit because it reunites the community admins/whatever from the main cnc websites (This makes them community leaders, at least in my opnion), and modding being a part of Ea business model or not don't matters, since PPM is a Modding Website, and this new Command & Conquer can't be modded.
Even if they wanted to have an moddable engine they would have to reprogram everything only for making it moddable, and we are talking about EA here; they would just prefer to launch an incomplete game than ditch it.
As such, inviting banshee; admin of an modding website for it would be pointless. Also, inviting every single community member only for making it an true Community Summit would be stupid and impossible. Inviting only a few notable members from the community would also be unfair; so what did you expect? QUICK_EDIT
Type more, it makes arguments better kids!
(But seriously, Ren and Banshee both into opposite corners and think what you've done) _________________ "Don't beg for things; Do it yourself or you'll never get anything." QUICK_EDIT
Meh....Renegade, you disregard the marked the new C&C is supposed to aim for, in which modding would deconstruct the market value and playability, the Free 2 Play C&C as from what can be made out is supposed to break the wall through E-Sports where it's predeccessors did poorly. Any kind of uncontrolled community modding, even WITH for example, an EA shopsystem for mods, deconstructs the control over balance and fair play, i dare to say it "doesnt aid the sport".
And if it can rival with competition like LoL, Dota or Starcraft, it'll have a long run on it's own, including constant develoment in skins, maps, maybe even factions.
With a model like this, i can't see modding having a purpose on this game, or aiding it.
Edit:
Yes this is EA we are talking about and when i think about it,
there is modding in starcraft 2 too....however it's isolated from the pure sports branch of the game, this would be an effort EA hasn't intendet to include so far.
So EA's argument would only be, to isolate the player/consumers modding efforts to create extra content, that could rival the content of EA people pay for.
The only way i see modding allowed in EA's new game would be, having like SC 2, a balanced e-sports mode where only cosmetical changes are allowed, and the user /modder that want to mod the game has to offer his content with a small fee in a sort of...in-built shop system, where EA's content mix with user content.
This could either go horribly wrong, or incredibly well depending on how the actual game is received and the accessability for modding stands, and thus requires a lot....and a lot of company staff to manage, observe and update the whole platform, which is what it would become.
That would spark a lot of possibilities in the future, i could even see maps that are sold, with a voting system from bad to "vote that map into the official tournament pool" or something like that. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
For god sakes, its named Community Summit because it reunites the community admins/whatever from the main cnc websites (This makes them community leaders, at least in my opnion), and modding being a part of Ea business model or not don't matters, since PPM is a Modding Website, and this new Command & Conquer can't be modded.
Even if they wanted to have an moddable engine they would have to reprogram everything only for making it moddable, and we are talking about EA here; they would just prefer to launch an incomplete game than ditch it.
As such, inviting banshee; admin of an modding website for it would be pointless. Also, inviting every single community member only for making it an true Community Summit would be stupid and impossible. Inviting only a few notable members from the community would also be unfair; so what did you expect?
I would expect you to actually read the post you're responding to. It usually prevents responses like yours, where every single line is redundant, since you're either telling me the same things I just said, or things that have nothing to do with the core question at hand, or things I already replied to.
blubb wrote:
Meh....Renegade, you disregard the marked the new C&C is supposed to aim for, in which modding would deconstruct the market value and playability, the Free 2 Play C&C as from what can be made out is supposed to break the wall through E-Sports where it's predeccessors did poorly. Any kind of uncontrolled community modding, even WITH for example, an EA shopsystem for mods, deconstructs the control over balance and fair play, i dare to say it "doesnt aid the sport".
And if it can rival with competition like LoL, Dota or Starcraft, it'll have a long run on it's own, including constant develoment in skins, maps, maybe even factions.
With a model like this, i can't see modding having a purpose on this game, or aiding it.
*sigh*
I can only repeat what I already said: I didn't bring modding into this. Banshee did, in an attempt to redefine the group of people we're talking about. I never attempted to bring modding into this, I just pointed out that the blanket statement "nowadays modding goes against EA's business goals" is factually untrue. In fact, I explicitly used the idea of a "Modders Summit" without modders as an example of how silly a "Community Summit" without proper community representation was. How much clearer can I treat modding as an independent thing?
To make this clear, once more, since people don't seem to grasp it: I care about the fact that the pre-Generals C&C community was not represented at this supposed "Community Summit", and that Banshee felt no need to point out the hypocrisy and deception behind that.
It's the others who are trying to argue that every pre-Generals C&C fan in existence is also a modder, and since modding completely, entirely and unquestionably goes against EA's business goals, it is therefore understandable no pre-Generals C&C fan was invited to the "Summit", since he was shunned because he was a modder, not because EA is trying to exclude the parts of the community it deems financially uninteresting.
(If that argumentation sounds stupid, that's because it is. That's what I've been pointing out for days now.)
The whole modding issue is an independent topic, and I'm only pursuing it because of the utter ridiculousness of the blanket claim that modding goes against EA's business goals, either in general or in this particular case.
blubb wrote:
Edit:
Yes this is EA we are talking about and when i think about it,
there is modding in starcraft 2 too....however it's isolated from the pure sports branch of the game, this would be an effort EA hasn't intendet to include so far.
So EA's argument would only be, to isolate the player/consumers modding efforts to create extra content, that could rival the content of EA people pay for.
You will find that even our ancient rules-based C&Cs don't allow anyone to bring random mods into a multiplayer game. The fact that a tournament of any kind has to happen with the same game under the same conditions is out of the question. But do you really think that all players are going to play league games all the time? Sure, EA would love for the game to become a 100% pro sports thing, but do you consider that realistic?
(Point being, I predict the non-pro-section of the player base to be far greater than the pro players, and thus far more important for revenue generation.)
blubb wrote:
The only way i see modding allowed in EA's new game would be, having like SC 2, a balanced e-sports mode where only cosmetical changes are allowed, and the user /modder that want to mod the game has to offer his content with a small fee in a sort of...in-built shop system, where EA's content mix with user content.
While I disagree the shop version is the only option, it underlines my point: Modding does not necessarily go against EA's business goals, not even in the new C+C.
blubb wrote:
This could either go horribly wrong, or incredibly well depending on how the actual game is received and the accessability for modding stands, and thus requires a lot....and a lot of company staff to manage, observe and update the whole platform, which is what it would become.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube...many big, free services only gain relevance through their APIs and the apps created around them. Sure, Facebook was kind of a big thing before. But it was the likes of Farmville that turned it into a giant economy, to the point where they created Facebook Credits to get a piece of the cake.
You're not making money by giving out shit for free. An unmoddable game with a finite set of DLCs will not satisfy non-league players indefinitely, and if you look at the ratio of league vs. non-league players in general, you'll find that the majority of players just plain doesn't want to play competitively. Certainly, there are millions of people ranked for StarCraft II on Battle.net. But are they ranked because they played for rank, or because it just happened? Do they keep playing because of their rank, or does the ranking happen in the background, and they just play for fun? Is there really a six-million-player StarCraft II-league going on? I rather doubt that.
In order to make sure non-league-players keep buying stuff, EA would have to ensure an infinite stream of DLCs anyway - otherwise, either people simply don't have anything left to buy, or they could get bored, because the DLCs all look the same at some point. So they'll have to hire additional staff anyway. Designers, coders, testers, all to keep the DLCs flowing.
(Remember EA's marketing: "An ever-evolving experience, enhance your game with an expanding array of content based on how you play.")
Think about it: The game is free. The focus is on online play. So the players will have to generate at least around $30 per player to offset the lack of a purchase price, and then enough to run the game servers, the moderators, the league supervisors, the DLC- and inevitable add-on creators, etc., etc. Even if they make the game client cost, and only the "online experience" free, that's still a shitload of money to be generated.
Assume a Dollar, on average, for each DLC, and ponder how many people need to be convinced to buy how many items for this thing to remain profitable enough to not get killed by EA.
And then ask yourself a question: What would you rather buy? The fifth tank created by EA's Official DLC Sweatshop, with yet another slightly modified skin and a generic weapon that'll blend into the game as if it weren't there...or the crazy unit a friend of yours created, which is absolutely not tournament-fit, but hilarious to watch in an MP game?
Stock shit gets old. What kept games like Quake, Half-Life, Tribes or earlier C&Cs alive was that the continuous flow of mods kept things interesting and variable. If you don't like your YR to be campy and mind-control-y, add a realism mod. If you're a WWII fan, get your Blitzkrieg on. Hate destructive SWs but like the tactical ones? Change the rules so only Nukes and Weather Storms get disabled through checkbox.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Mods increase a game's longevity, and therefore the number of times the game can try to take your money.
You're of no use to EA if you quit playing because you've seen it all.
blubb wrote:
That would spark a lot of possibilities in the future, i could even see maps that are sold, with a voting system from bad to "vote that map into the official tournament pool" or something like that.
Mods make the game. Look at DotA, that's a mod that became so popular, it is its own genre and made 2 successful sequels (League of Legends {a thousand copies of League of Legends} and DOTA 2).
But you can count on EA not making mods available, and since Banshee moderates a 'premierely modding' site, he doesn't get to go anywhere.
(Sorry if we're all rubbing it in, haha) _________________ "Don't beg for things; Do it yourself or you'll never get anything." QUICK_EDIT
I remember Crim telling me that no one would whine about the lack of modding if the game is good enough. For now, I stand corrected. There are a hand full of games which are unmoddable and still fun. Still, kinda disappointing that a game in a series of moddable games doesn't have it.
From what I've seen in the latest trailer, it looks and plays like the original Generals with the camera perspective looking quite similar to TD/RA1's. Thats good enough for me. Looking forward to see more about the third faction, which is fortunately NOT Russia or the US. _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:44 pm Post subject:
freedom fighter wrote:
I remember Crim telling me that no one would whine about the lack of modding if the game is good enough. For now, I stand corrected. There are a hand full of games which are unmoddable and still fun. Still, kinda disappointing that a game in a series of moddable games doesn't have it.
From what I've seen in the latest trailer, it looks and plays like the original Generals with the camera perspective looking quite similar to TD/RA1's. Thats good enough for me. Looking forward to see more about the third faction, which is fortunately NOT Russia or the US.
I still hope very much for a return of China QUICK_EDIT
Oh, good thing they kept the bottom bar. I actually prefer the radar to stay on the bottom-left corner. Much more practical than on the top-right corner. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:36 pm Post subject:
freedom fighter wrote:
The one on the right.
So, they had a perfectly good logo for the GLA, and they decided to scrap it completely for some generic AK weapon on a globe? That the EA and this 3rd army have a new logo may be understandable as they are new factions, but why the GLA as well? In C&C3 and RA3 they didn't create new logos for the existing factions either, just updated variants
Although, it's EA.
Anyways, I see what you mean about the third faction: definitely Asian QUICK_EDIT
Maybe they thought the GLA was too Islam-oriented (which it clearly was, since the faction was based in the Middle-East and Central Asia). Maybe GLA has expanded to include, oh I don't know, African and South-American guerilla factions as well? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I never saw Allies updating their logo with beer or baguette just because France and Germany are in it.
But a terrorist organization updating its logo, never knew terrorists were that market-bound people. _________________
Pretty sure terrorism relies entirely on "marketting". I don't see what the issue is with the new logo though, it's better than the other two and IMO the original which was rather ugly in itself. QUICK_EDIT
You do realize that the Logos now look more something akin to Vectors as opposed to 3D Renders?
And much like any organization they update their insignias,logos,etc. now and then.
This was supposed to be after ZH though so yeah the GLA has probably expanded to probably encompass almost every nation. _________________ ~ Excelsior ~ QUICK_EDIT
Maybe they thought the GLA was too Islam-oriented (which it clearly was, since the faction was based in the Middle-East and Central Asia). Maybe GLA has expanded to include, oh I don't know, African and South-American guerilla factions as well?
Even though the GLA was not fighting for religious reasons whatsoever. They were merely "fighting against the imperialistic power of China". Then the US decided to pick it's nose into the whole conflict... Keep in mind that there was a Chinese general who defected to the GLA for some reason.
There may be hints that the GLA has shifted away from the stereotypical arab terrorists theme in this game though. One of the early trailers had a Quad Cannon with Latin writings and an anarchy symbol painted on it. After all, it would make sense to call them the Global Liberation Army if they really are a GLOBAL movement.
Oh and I do so hope those faction logos aren't final. They look plain :/ _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
Maybe they thought the GLA was too Islam-oriented (which it clearly was, since the faction was based in the Middle-East and Central Asia). Maybe GLA has expanded to include, oh I don't know, African and South-American guerilla factions as well?
So ztyping dumb I am at a lack of words...
G2 gets shittier with every new piece of info. Can't wait to play a generals made to appeal to all western chinese and muslim people. As if it was made by the new Disney. QUICK_EDIT
Anyone who thinks that Generals was about 'holy war this holy that' is a complete imbecile, despite the presence of arab terrorists and american tanks having knight templar names. We have the Tiberiumverse for that.
If you want to play a game where you kill arab muslim terrorists so much, go play Army of Two. You get to kill arab muslim terrorists, chinamen and american cooperate fucks who sent you to kill said terrorists. _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
Maybe they thought the GLA was too Islam-oriented (which it clearly was, since the faction was based in the Middle-East and Central Asia). Maybe GLA has expanded to include, oh I don't know, African and South-American guerilla factions as well?
Gonna go with FF on this one, logo's are extremely plain. Old GLA logo, albeit a strange color, was better. And I don't see where you guys are getting that the old GLA logo was any kind of "Middle-Eastern looking". Any sort of "European Alliance" has never been inventive, I'll give them that. But come on, A RED STAR? How many times has that been used, more than a million times?
Plain logos are bad and their artists should feel bad. _________________ "Don't beg for things; Do it yourself or you'll never get anything." QUICK_EDIT
Maybe because... uh... GLA is home in the middle east? Mission 1 Iraq then some Kazhakstan. However in the game there is nothing religious. Never is Islam or allah or jihad or anything religious mentioned or referred to. Its just that people associate the GLA style to muslim because of them coming from the middle east and the majority of the people living there are muslim. The sword and the moon are also symbols of that culture (Aladdin). Generals was an outstanding game and the factions and how they were made up is part of it. The UN mission where you shoot down those planes and attack the villages has the value of an historical achievement hence why it got censored out. QUICK_EDIT
...they're still terrorists, so I don't really give a crap what their logo looks like. It's simple and doesn't necessarily have to be effective, so whatever. We still know who they are. _________________ Okay, my signature was starting to annoy even me. QUICK_EDIT
I'm starting to miss the times where our factions where represented with animals... Even something out of place, like a logo with the graph of a mathematical function would look better. _________________
Creator of Shattered Paradise .
ORA Discord https://discordapp.com/invite/tuhp9m6 , SP Discord https://discord.gg/hk428Wk QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
