JohnFordColey

I guess people are upset about EA "winning" the competition because, when compared to BofA, EA isn't as "evil". I think we're all forgetting that even being nominated for the Golden Poo shows that your company has screwed up big time in the eyes of consumers and consumer advocates. Just because EA "won" doesn't mean that BofA isn't overdrafting you relentlessly, or PayPal isn't making you destroy a priceless antique in order for you to get your money back, it just shows that people are tired of EA forcing the gaming industry into a certain business model that is, at the very least, anti-consumer.

I think the point that we should take from this is that games are now a legitimate business, open to the same criticisms as any other industry. It's not as if by "winning" this award, the company is under any obligation to change its business practices, and from EA's response, they seem to be following that idea. It only serves as a spotlight for terrible business practices, and EA has made plenty of them. They're just as deserving as anyone else who was in the tourney, it just so happened that public opinion was "on their side."

I think the best part of the Supply Depot joke is how every piece of dialogue "in-game" is from Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Love that movie.

@ReadingRambo

I agree that Bioware should be criticized for making a terrible ending to a great series. That's perfectly justifiable and downright necessary. What I'm saying is that they can't change a story around simply because you, as the consumer of the work, did not like it. If Bioware and the writers agree among themselves that the ending should be changed, it is their right as creators to make that change. But they should not feel forced to by their audience to go through with it.

Ridley Scott changed Blade Runner (twice!), and it's mostly agreed that his cuts are vastly superior to what was originally released in theaters. But he didn't change the film because of viewer backlash, he changed it in order for the film to fit his vision of what it should be, no one else's. That's what Bioware has to decide: if the overall vision of their work has been sufficiently upheld, or that they need to go back and make changes in order to meet that ideal.

It's strange, I really don't like ME3's ending, but as a writer, I know the importance of remaining true to your work. For good or for ill, you have take ownership of your story.

If the game were a linear story (say, FFVII), then the argument would be as simple as that. Sure, people were upset that Aerith died, but Square isn't under any obligation to change the story just to please fans who wanted her to stay alive. That's how they wanted the story to go. However, Bioware has said from day 1 that this was the player's story, that we were co-collaborators in this ambitious narrative, and that the only canon is the one we make with our decisions. This puts Bioware in an awkward position, since those statements are being interpreted by fans as meaning that they actually have a say in where the story goes. Even though players did not actively engage in the writing process, they were given the tools to construct the story as they saw fit, and since many believed the ending was weak, they felt that it was within their right to complain and ask for something better, whatever that would entail.

There is an article on PC Gamer (link at the bottom) that asked game writers what their take on the ME ending controversy was. It was Dave Grossman from Telltale who I believe had the best take on it: if Bioware agrees with the fans that ending was not up to par with the rest of the game, then they should change the ending, but they shouldn't just cave into fans' demand for change if they believe they made the right call.

Bioware has brought into light the nature of game narrative, and forces us to ask the question: who does the story truly belong to in an interactive medium, especially when player choice is so integrated within that story?

(Link to article: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/23/mass-effect-3-ending-what-do-game-writers-think/ )

@BernardMarx

Or you can just kill them. They just said in the video you can sneak or engage them. Bioshock also had cameras you could sneak past, but if you trip them, it wasn't the end of the game.

Same concept here, only the cameras run on sound. And are actually alive.

@Seffrid

It's not mind games. Smedley decided that EQMac wasn't financially viable anymore and to shut it down, but after EQMac players made enough noise, he changed his mind and even threw in the perk of it being subscription-free indefinitely. If those are his kind of mind games, then his idea of messing with people's heads is rather tame.

@smg77

Well, he did bring back EQMac as completely free-to-play for the indefinite future, so he can't be all bad...

@Seffrid

Agreed. Though I am quite happy that the region-locking of servers is now off the table, reading about ProSieben's handling of sensitive information makes me think that this issue has yet to fully play out. Nobody wants to put their financial information into the hands of a company that has been hacked before and didn't really do much about it.

Honestly, I think the only way for SOE to make it out of this with some dignity is to scale back the deal to where ProSieben is merely the publisher in the EU, with SOE still running all the backend stuff. No need for new accounts or currency, and we can continue like nothing really happened.

@Jenks

There are already servers labeled for EU players, but you're able to create a character on any server you want. An EU player isn't barred from rolling on a US server, and vice versa.

I find it funny that SOE always finds a way to completely screw up any goodwill that they happen to create with their player base. I mean, just a few days ago, we were praising Smedley for not just reversing his decision to shut down EQMac, but making it completely free to play on for the indefinite future. Now, all that gets thrown out the window because SOE wishes to break up communities that have lasted for years and hand over EU players to a company that we knew really nothing about, and the more we learn, the less we like what we see.

Sure, EU players who have characters on the servers now will be able to continue, but thanks to IP-blocking the servers by region (the stupidest idea on the Internet, especially when it comes to gaming), they have to maintain two accounts if they want to play with both their EU and US friends. How is that better for the consumer, or for the community at large?

Good job SOE, I hope the few dollars you save in outsourcing is worth the backlash coming your way.