About EA and WC games...

Ghost

Emperor
..You know, somebody must stick a thread explaining that WC3,4, Priv and P2 were created thanks to EA.
Every year some new poster comes and complaints about that :D
The shit hit the fan and someone is banned.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
I remember going through that phase. Thankfully I grew out of it. It would be easy to blame it on puberty if I didn't know so many adults who had that same odd anti-corporate blindness.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
I think you should sing a song about this scenario Ghost, and we can point people to that whenever it comes up.
 

Drakon

Spaceman
I agree completely. What's the point to people hating big business, anyway? Corporations make every aspect of modern civilization possible. Sure it can make sense to be pro-small business, pro-workers' union, or be critical of the occasional corporate blunder (in a more relatable sense, a bad game), but to be purely anti-corporate is sort of arrogant and against one's own interests. I mean c'mon, what is that one person a year accomplishing when they trash EA here besides discouraging the consideration of a new, incredible WC title? EA is a good thing. A very, very good thing. Who better to carry on the torch and continue to reel out impressive, innovative, and enjoyable games? The future of WC is much safer in the hands of a corporation than it would be in anyone else's I would imagine. :D
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
The future of WC is much safer in the hands of a corporation than it would be in anyone else's I would imagine. :D
Especially for the "anyone else" including the fandom. You only need to look at Privateer Remake for evidence. :p
 

Vinman

Vice Admiral
Agreed, especialy given they've been supportive of c&c3 with fmv
They realized that C&C without video just isn't C&C. I'm confident that they feel the same way about Wing Commander, and that the need to justify the expense of a film shoot is what is holding them back from making a full-fledged WC sequel.
 

ser lev

Swabbie
Banned
They realized that C&C without video just isn't C&C. I'm confident that they feel the same way about Wing Commander, and that the need to justify the expense of a film shoot is what is holding them back from making a full-fledged WC sequel.
Yep c&c3 and wc arena has certainly heated things up.....shame i don't have an xbox for arena though.
 

Kilrathikiller

Rear Admiral
This is the best place i can find to ask this but anybody know whats going on with the EA sweepstakes with all the WC games.(Not all but most)
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
This is the best place i can find to ask this but anybody know whats going on with the EA sweepstakes with all the WC games.(Not all but most)
I think the deadline to enter is over but they haven't announced a winner yet
 

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
..You know, somebody must stick a thread explaining that WC3,4, Priv and P2 were created thanks to EA.
Every year some new poster comes and complaints about that :D
The shit hit the fan and someone is banned.
Maybe I'm not up on all the WC history surrounding EA and Origin, etc, but what are people complaining about? And what's wrong with EA? I figured NONE of the WC games would have been made without EA, or some big software coroporation, backing the makers up. That's the way the world works.

On the corporation thing in general...
A lot of people are anti-big corporation for very good reasons. However, it's a much more complex issue than just "big = bad, small = good". Large corporations are allowed to exist because they are capable of doing things that smaller companies/individuals are not...certain R&D development efforts can only take place when bankrolled by a very large firm, certain projects or products requires such a large scope of resources from many locations that they are only possible because of large corporations, certain business breakthroughs can only occur when a large corporations peforms system-level integrations of improvements to things like supply chains, etc.

However, large corporations MUST be carefully monitored and regulated by governments in order to actually contribute to the general good. Now here's where pro-big business advocates start screaming "laissez-faire" (sp?) and "Milton Friedman" and "free market", but the fact is that large corporations, almost by definition, are the antithesis of a laissez-faire free market--they are artificial entities that only exist because special government laws allow them to (the whole concept of a corporation having liability and owning assets, instead of its people), and they have the power to squash the free market. This is where a lot of animosity towards them comes from. Frequently, some very visible large corporations (Wal-Mart, Microsoft, etc.) use their power to advance their own cause (or their stockholders') at the cost of their employees or the consumers. This generally occurs when their goals begin to cease to align with the goals of society (which frequently happens when they achieve oligopoly or monopoly status). This is when they deserve animosity, and when the government should step in.

The software market is a good example, of both large corporations doing good when their interests align with the public, and bad when they don't. EA's interest is to make money, and in the game distributor market, you make money by finding smaller companies that make good, bug-free, fun games, and backing them. Hence, a good chunk of Wing Commander, and other great games. Sometimes they make mistakes or misjudgements, and then they are published by people buying from their competition who found better written or funner games.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has near monopoly status with its operating systems. They no longer have incentive to improve their own product, since there are very few other choices available to consumers, and hence consumers are stuck with whatever Microsoft engineers think makes a good operating system. Meanwhile, they have incentives to actually try to crush better ideas than they have, because they want to protect this state of being.

Sorry for the rant. I just get annoyed by people who mindlessly argue pro- or anit-corporate slogans without any real depth of thought behind the issue, and was trying to head that off. And also, it's a Friday afternoon and I'd really rather not be at work...
 

Hawkjoe

1st Lieutenant
I couldn't have said it any better. The only problem with Microsoft is that it has a monopoly. They buy out smaller companies instead of trying to compete with them. Competition would ensure better programs are available to the public.

The biggest "beef" I have with Microsoft is that they have to come out with new operating systems every 2 years. They should concentrate on improving the ones they have instead (I'm still running Windows 98se on this computer).

Just my 2 cents.
 

Dark_Knight

Spaceman
i didn't like how Microsoft bought up Digital Anvil.

Also, with how buggy Battlefield 2 came out....i'm not that big a fan of EA as much anymore. I bet even Battlefield 2142 was buggy, but i didn't buy it because of what they did with Battlefield 2...and all those "expansions" they had for it. Would have been better off if they were free for download cuz they aren't worth it enough to get them. Special Forces was the only one i got, but it changed up the game quite a bit with you being able to deploy grapples and ziplines letting you go pretty much any where you wanted. They also brought in a new line of weapons and vehicles and teams to play as.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Microsoft, on the other hand, has near monopoly status with its operating systems. They no longer have incentive to improve their own product, since there are very few other choices available to consumers, and hence consumers are stuck with whatever Microsoft engineers think makes a good operating system. Meanwhile, they have incentives to actually try to crush better ideas than they have, because they want to protect this state of being.
There's a lot of compelling reasons to switch to a Macintosh these days, and Apple is certainly a strong company in 2007. Microsoft's 90+% of the market isn't absolutely guaranteed, and the standardization that its popularity has brought has been really nice. That's just talking Operating Systems though. They certainly don't have a monopoly in the console market, and they were quite a bit behind Sony in the last cycle.

The biggest "beef" I have with Microsoft is that they have to come out with new operating systems every 2 years. They should concentrate on improving the ones they have instead (I'm still running Windows 98se on this computer).
I don't think that holds up. The fact that you're running "SE" should tell you that they spend time improving their OSes. XP was released in 2001, and they spent almost six years improving that before releasing Vista.
 

ser lev

Swabbie
Banned
I don't think that holds up. The fact that you're running "SE" should tell you that they spend time improving their OSes. XP was released in 2001, and they spent almost six years improving that before releasing Vista.
Strangley the majority of problems with vista where caused not by microsoft; but by other companies who after being sent beta after beta didn't really bother to calibrate (if that's the right word) their products to it.

I personally think it holds up very well.
 

Tyrant

Spaceman
There's a lot of compelling reasons to switch to a Macintosh these days, and Apple is certainly a strong company in 2007. Microsoft's 90+% of the market isn't absolutely guaranteed, and the standardization that its popularity has brought has been really nice. That's just talking Operating Systems though. They certainly don't have a monopoly in the console market, and they were quite a bit behind Sony in the last cycle.
Well, they definately arent now, although i'd attribute this to Sony screwing up thus far with the PS3, and the fact thta the 360 launched a year earlier. Although the Wii might be its main competition.

And I don't really see the problem with Vista. I'm running it on my computer, have been for a few mounths, and have had very few glitches and other assorted stuff happen.

I just don't see what's so wrong with it.
 

Tigerhawk

Captain
There's a lot of compelling reasons to switch to a Macintosh these days, and Apple is certainly a strong company in 2007
Actually, with the things I've seen of Apple, I'm not sure I'd trust it.

The first huge experience I had with an Apple was during my Navy days...the AF base I was assigned to gave their print shop brand new G4s. These things would crash literally every ten minutes. The civvy employees who were forced to use them hated them...that hate was evident in their speech...and when I was partnered with them to get some graphics things done, it took forever simply because it was crashing so much.

The other part is that, for my second job, I work at a Sharper Image that has access to a main mall entrance. I'm certainly not there 24/7, but I end up seeing a lot more Mac products coming back than I do going out the door. Seems kind of telling to me.
 

Jason_Ryock

Vice Admiral
And I don't really see the problem with Vista. I'm running it on my computer, have been for a few mounths, and have had very few glitches and other assorted stuff happen.

I just don't see what's so wrong with it.
My biggest complain? That my Applications have to keep with my Operating System for Video Card access. Vista drags so much out of the processor and graphics card, it's like trying to run Windows 95 on a 386 with the 3.1 to 95 upgrade kit.

I think a lot of people are turned off by the "safety" functions that "enable" the computer to ask you permission before doing anything. More often then I not, I feel like I'm the one saying to the computer: "I'd like to do this, are you okay with it?" then the other way around.

However, there are a lot of ways around that. The Vista interface (for me - thus far) has been very intuitive and easy to access. A lot of the simpler things that took several clicks to do in Windows XP can be done or adjusted easily in Vista. It gives you less control - for more automation.
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
My biggest complain? That my Applications have to keep with my Operating System for Video Card access. Vista drags so much out of the processor and graphics card, it's like trying to run Windows 95 on a 386 with the 3.1 to 95 upgrade kit.
You can also trun off all the bells and whistles of the Aero interface though. That should improve performance significantly if your system is on the low end of the spectrum.
 

Jason_Ryock

Vice Admiral
You can also trun off all the bells and whistles of the Aero interface though. That should improve performance significantly if your system is on the low end of the spectrum.
Thanks for that - I'll have to look into doing that. I haven't really spent much time figuring out how to shut things off to make it more convenient yet.

I just think on general principle, the goal for an OS should be to make using the computer more convenient, not to make it 'prettier' which seems to be the only purpose for Vista.
 
Top