Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

[Counter Punch]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

And to McGowan. So what? Name one company in the world that wouldn’t lobby Congress to keep a money machine like micro transactions running. I don’t live in a world where unicorns and fairy tales come true. If you want to do some good go start a non-profit. But it’s more “willfully ignorant“ to assume that trying to keep a profitable Component of your business from churning on is somehow “evil”. You don’t want your kids participating in what you consider child gambling? Good. Do your research and do not let them play games that feature components such as this. You don’t want your kids spending YOUR hard earned money on in game micro transactions? Good. Do your research and most of all tell little Timmy and little jessica to pound sand if the base game you paid $60 for is not enough for them. At some point parents have to take responsibility. People claim they want less government but then expect the government to regulate everything they can’t handle themselves

McGowan made a good point. It’s a total cop out and a complete act of misdirection to bring “we’re just folks” into the conversation.

Do you think there’s no evil that can be done by a corporation? What about cigarette companies? Do you think it’s immoral to make cigarettes purposefully as addictive as possible, market them to kids (as had been don’t in the past), and make millions off a product that kills people and dramatically reduced the quality of their life and hurts them financially? It it fair to criticize Phillip Morris?

I’m not comparing EA to a tobacco company, but I’m making the analogy to illustrate the point that it’s unfair to absolve a company of wrongdoing because most of the people who work there have good intentions and are trying to feed their families and make people happy (people love smoking, after all).

You can respect the people who work for EA and still criticize EAs business practices. Those aren’t mutually exclusive ideas.

The constant big leaguing on here, the “you don’t know what’s actually going on” ISNT A VALID ARGUMENT when you haven’t actually addressed the criticism. We don’t have to sit in on a board meeting. We can use deductive reasoning to conclude that this game had a very long development cycle, and tons of resources were dedicated to cosmetic changes. Clearly from what I’ve read on here it wasn’t the devs decision to put so much focus on that aspect of the game. The game WILL sell some sort of in-game currency that can be used to purchase these cosmetics if you don’t want to grind for them. I guarantee it. Someone(s) made that decision, who weren’t the programmers, coders, creative directors, etc. True of false? Those are the people we are frustrated with, and criticism of them is completely valid. Trying to make us feel guilty or unfairly claiming we are attacking the people who are just trying to make a good game is uncalled for, and a curious strawman to introduce into the conversation.

[Skynet]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

Mate, don't feel bad about disagreeing with me or anyone on the team. If I'm off base, call me out. I appreciate the accountability, and do my best to live up to it.

That being said, you're right. There are often more resources devoted to growing new audiences and to bringing back the largest portions of old ones, and that's rarely the people who consider themselves part of the 'hardcore'. I'm not trying to refute that. Truly. It's both logical to do it, and obviously what's been done. And I don't at all think it's the wrong choice, even though I'm on your side of the fence.

My point is to say that working on features/content more appealing to one audience doesn't mean we haven't worked on features appealing to the others. We've done quite a lot of work that is directly targeting more hardcore users than new or casual ones, in fact. As the dev most closely related to your particular branch of hardcore, however, I know exactly where you're coming from, and I agree that you got the shorter end of the stick than say the online competitive hardcores. The examples you brought up of CAF are perfect examples, and they illustrate your frustrations accurately.

[GameplayDevUFC]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

Trying to make us feel guilty or unfairly claiming we are attacking the people who are just trying to make a good game is uncalled for, and a curious strawman to introduce into the conversation.

The ethics of micro transactions had nothing to do with the initial discussion in this thread, or what myself and Skynet were replying to.

Bringing that up is the real straw man here.

[Kingslayer04]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

I actually said EA because I wanted to treat guys like GPD and Skynet as respectfully as possible and assumed that they are constrained by EA's vision for the series. I just wanted to give them all the benefit of the doubt possible. The truth is I don't know what stance each individual person has. I do know what stance EA as a corporation has, regardless of Skynet's relationship with his colleagues and his love for his work. He seems to identify with EA really strongly, however, so... should I lump everyone together?

The choices EA, whoever the people behind that abbreviation may be, made regarding UFC 4 are shallow and profit-driven, not longevity and legacy driven. Not allocating a bigger budget to make both backyards/kumites and Career and Universe possible is a choice. What's also a choice is using whatever resources are available to make a one-and-done scripted Career, kumites based on someone's 15 minutes of fame, shoehorning CAFs in Ranked, limiting offline players' creativity even more than before, making steps forwards only to make some backwards in the cage and spending a humongous amount of their resources to acquire Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury. All of that instead of things that have actually been wanted by people for ages and that any sports game has. Even FIFA. All of those are choices, poor choices, that in no way cater to hardcores, no matter what semantic games people want to play. The only way they aren't a poor choice is if EA gets enough sales, i.e. if they get the money they hope they'll get.

It's good that the devs are passionate about their work but MacGowan makes a good point about the willful ignorance. Edit: just to be clear, I haven't said anything about MTXs or being "evil".

[TheShizNo1]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

I HATE to disagree with one of my favorite devs publicaly but I have to address this a little.

"Why is it that you think our including more people in the greater UFC experience means that we haven't provided you with an enjoyable place to call home too?"

To use your example, we may all be in the same home but my cousin "Casual Fan" looks like he has a much nicer room than I do as a "hardcore fan" right now.

This isnt directed at you because you are the AI dev but the CAF situation is a prime example. Hardcore fans have been asking for an expanded CAF suite for 4 yrs. Now the team did add to the CAF suite....new tattoos, hairstyles etc. But they also took away from it. I cant speak on all of it because it hasnt been fully announced but one thing they took away was the ability to edit movesets/stats/perks from the CAFs.

Now that feature isnt one that really affects anyone but hardcore fans. So when someone sees that you can put clown wigs or wrestling headgear on but cant specifically determine what kind of fighter he is (down to specific moves etc.)...its kind of clear who EA or the UFC devs that make the decisions are targeting.

There are other areas that I could mention to but you get my point.

I get the frustration that OSers are showing. ****, I predicted it and told people directly months ago. Some of it is an overreaction but some of it...is indefensible.

Finally, I think people use "EA" because this situation seems to be occuring in all of their sports games. What mode do hardcore sim Madden fans play most? Franchise mode. What mode has barely been improved the last 5 yrs?....Franchise mode. To the point where gamers had a top 10 trending topic a few weeks ago "Fix Madden Franchise".

What mode do hardcore sim Fifa fans play most? Career mode. What mode has barely improved the last 5 yrs?....Career mode.

Eventually you have to start listening when someone repeatedly shows you something through their actions. EA as a company is showing what they prioritize through who it targets with their game improvements.

[emoji1490][emoji1490][emoji1490][emoji1490][emoji1490][emoji1490] unliked this post so I could like it twice

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[GameplayDevUFC]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

It's good that the devs are passionate about their work but MacGowan makes a good point about the willful ignorance.

What specifically do you think I am being willfully ignorant of?

[Skynet]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

McGowan made a good point. It’s a total cop out and a complete act of misdirection to bring “we’re just folks” into the conversation.

It's not a cop out at all. My point is that users who do that are attempting to place blame to drive some feeling of accountability. Or to get the attention of someone responsible. Or, in less managed communities, to say things that are vitriolic and abusive without putting an actual name to their comments, that they'd never say to someone's face. This is one of the single worst things a user can do to be heard. I'm not trying to pass the buck and divert attention from the comments, I'm quite specifically trying to help them get more recognition by encouraging people to use better communication practices.

Calling out 'EA' is going to result in the comment being ignored or not taken as much to heart by any dev that reads it, even if the concerns voiced are valid. If I'm responsible, then say so respectfully. If it's someone else, great. If you don't know who... then don't try to blame it on anyone. It will help you get heard.

[Kingslayer04]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

What specifically do you think I am being willfully ignorant of?

Uh...with you specifically it's about taking it personally when I think I made it pretty clear what I'm addressing while giving you and Skynet all the props that I can. But it applied more to him really, using the "passionate people" argument — it is true that this can be said of any company.

Actually I don't know where MacGowan was coming from, I see he and Counter Punch are having issues with MTXs, I haven't talked about any of that. I just thought that Skynet's argument was unconvincing, as was yours about the ultimate UFC experience (not that what you said wasn't true).

[Counter Punch]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

The ethics of micro transactions had nothing to do with the initial discussion in this thread, or what myself and Skynet were replying to.

Bringing that up is the real straw man here.

Microtransactions were an example given to serve as an analogy. The reason that was done is because when Macro-level decisions about the direction do the game were criticized, we were told that we were delusional and that those decision aren’t being made in the way we think they are, that EA is nothing more then a sum of its parts, and the game is entirely a product of well-intentioned people just trying to make the best game that they can. That obviously isn’t true.

Are we even trying to be intellectually honest here? Or are we just playing a game of “gotcha” at this point?

[GameplayDevUFC]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

Microtransactions were an example given to serve as an analogy. The reason that was done is because when Macro-level decisions about the direction do the game were criticized, we were told that we were delusional and that those decision aren’t being made in the way we think they are, that EA is nothing more then a sum of its parts, and the game is entirely a product of well-intentioned people just trying to make the best game that they can. That obviously isn’t true.

Are we even trying to be intellectually honest here? Or are we just playing a game of “gotcha” at this point?

I never said you were delusional.

[HypeRNT]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

I HATE to disagree with one of my favorite devs publicaly but I have to address this a little.

This isnt directed at you because you are the AI dev but the CAF situation is a prime example. Hardcore fans have been asking for an expanded CAF suite for 4 yrs. Now the team did add to the CAF suite....new tattoos, hairstyles etc. But they also took away from it. I cant speak on all of it because it hasnt been fully announced but one thing they took away was the ability to edit movesets/stats/perks from the CAFs.

Now that feature isnt one that really affects anyone but hardcore fans. So when someone sees that you can put clown wigs or wrestling headgear on but cant specifically determine what kind of fighter he is (down to specific moves etc.)...its kind of clear who EA or the UFC devs that make the decisions are targeting. .[/B]

Just to touch on this point, how is it that those 2 things are being limited? Casual fans tinker with all that stuff all the time....Especially if you make a caf....why was that limited this year? The only reason i can think of is to appease the ranked players(who are the minority player base?) because the caf's got added to ranked mode, the following changes were made to nerf caf's right? Like there is literally no other reason to limit move sets and ratings, BEYOND the already max cap that was put on the caf's AND it was mentioned that the top tier roster fighters will be rated higher then any CAF.

So in my opinion the rating cap that is below the top rated roster fighters should be enough....if anything, there should be some trade off between being able to edit a few stats, or few movelist slots, or just stats or just movelists.

I wouldnt even call "caf" players hardcore, i think plenty of casuals sit there messing with their caf, i know streamers especially love it for their content....I feel like this "ranked caf" thing has created more negativity than anything else related to the game, and i know 100% that is not backed by any data besides the few individuals that decided so.

[Therebelyell626]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

Microtransactions were an example given to serve as an analogy. The reason that was done is because when Macro-level decisions about the direction do the game were criticized, we were told that we were delusional and that those decision aren’t being made in the way we think they are, that EA is nothing more then a sum of its parts, and the game is entirely a product of well-intentioned people just trying to make the best game that they can. That obviously isn’t true.

Are we even trying to be intellectually honest here? Or are we just playing a game of “gotcha” at this point?

I am personally trying to be intellectually honest here. I am not trying to have a “gotcha” moment, or garner likes. Micro transactions were used as an example and as far AS I KNOW, there are no micro transactions in UFC 4. Am I excited for UFC 4, and will I be buying it? Probably not. I haven’t been excited since UFC 2 because the elements I am looking for out of a game are not in UFC 3 nor UFC 4 from what I can see. And that is fine. But I am not going to use my frustrations with the game as an excuse to buzz saw skynet or anyone else, asking them questions about micro transactions in games that they had nothing to do with. That just seems counter productive to me. Especially when they really are the only team I have seen so far that is still interacting with OS’ers. Maddens team is gone from this site. NHL’s team gone. The show, not as bad as the last two but gone For the most part.

There has been 2.5 years of feedback threads, game changer events, community interaction. If something was not included in the game at this point then yes it was a conscious effort at some point by someone involved in this game. But it is what it is at this point. The games out in 3 weeks. So let’s just hope the content updates make this game something we can all be happy with

[Kingslayer04]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

It's not a cop out at all. My point is that users who do that are attempting to place blame to drive some feeling of accountability. Or to get the attention of someone responsible. Or, in less managed communities, to say things that are vitriolic and abusive without putting an actual name to their comments, that they'd never say to someone's face. This is one of the single worst things a user can do to be heard. I'm not trying to pass the buck and divert attention from the comments, I'm quite specifically trying to help them get more recognition by encouraging people to use better communication practices.

Calling out 'EA' is going to result in the comment being ignored or not taken as much to heart by any dev that reads it, even if the concerns voiced are valid. If I'm responsible, then say so respectfully. If it's someone else, great. If you don't know who... then don't try to blame it on anyone. It will help you get heard.

So you can only criticise the company if you know the people who work in it by name and personally? I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. The entity that offers me games is EA. If the consumer is to have an opinion on those who have made those games, that opinion is directed at EA. I don't care if the CEO X.Y. is a very caring family man or loves his job, if I am to praise or criticise the product I'll direct those at the brand behind it. By separating you from "EA", I was actually giving you and GPD the benefit of the doubt and props, but I gather that I should lump you all together? Or meet you all personally (while trying to pretend EA doesn't only care about their profits which they have shown me through their work on their games, most notably UFC 4)? Of course, being as informed as possible before criticising is important and you're in the position to inform me. But again, the "passionate worker" argument doesn't really do it for me.

I'm sorry but those arguments are unconvincing to me.

[Counter Punch]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

It's not a cop out at all. My point is that users who do that are attempting to place blame to drive some feeling of accountability. Or to get the attention of someone responsible. Or, in less managed communities, to say things that are vitriolic and abusive without putting an actual name to their comments, that they'd never say to someone's face. This is one of the single worst things a user can do to be heard. I'm not trying to pass the buck and divert attention from the comments, I'm quite specifically trying to help them get more recognition by encouraging people to use better communication practices.

Calling out 'EA' is going to result in the comment being ignored or not taken as much to heart by any dev that reads it, even if the concerns voiced are valid. If I'm responsible, then say so respectfully. If it's someone else, great. If you don't know who... then don't try to blame it on anyone. It will help you get heard.

With all due respect you’re making a completely different argument at this point than your post that was addressed by McGowan and myself.

Regardless, when a well-reasoned, kindly worded critique is made the response that it is met with is often “You’re not the target group, EA knows you’ll buy the game anyway so they aren’t listening”.

If the critique isn’t as kindly worded, the response is “EA isn’t going to listen to you if you are being negative or just callling them out”. I though they weren’t listening to us anyway? I though they didn’t prioritize the things OS cares about? I thought they had no incentive to cater to our needs because we are too small a percentage of the playerbase and we buy the game regardless? Which is it?

This should be a place to discuss the game and debate the merits of different opinions about the direction of the game and changes that could (hopefully) be made to improve the experience. Imagine if all the energy spent criticizing tone and ego posturing were spent actually trying to find a way to actually hear what people are saying and try to implement what you can into the game. I’m sure that happening, but most of these responses that I see people getting to their posts literally serves NO PURPOSE towards making the game better.

I’ve never seen a forum where people are expected to asskiss so much. The devs are benefitting from having direct access to the fan base. Praise is great and makes everyone feel good. Criticism is ultimately what contributes to the process of improvement. I this supposed to be a place to celebrate the game and where we are only allowed to criticize certain things? You guys make certain opinions here seem EXTREMELY unwanted, and then act surprised when we get frustrated. And then when you get back into a corner where it seems they you haven’t really been consistent in your arguments, the “we just want to make a great game” tactic comes out.

I can’t possibly be the only one getting tired of having to wade through an entire three-foot-deep swamp of ego before any kind of productive dialogue can take place regarding the very fair criticisms of this franchise.

IT IS NOT PERSONAL. STOP TAKING EVERYTHING PERSONALLY. BE PROFESSIONAL AND GIVE THE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS COMPLAINING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT INSTEAD OF TAKING OUR PURCHASE FOR GRANTED.

[Skynet]

Re: Soooo, are you part of the 'data"?

Nothing's been taken personally here, Kingslayer. At least, I don't feel attacked or anything of the sort. I just disagree with what you say is true, or perhaps more accurate to say I disagree with your reasoning for why it's the truth. I'll try to give a few examples.

The choices EA, whoever the people behind that abbreviation may be, made regarding UFC 4 are shallow and profit-driven, not longevity and legacy driven

This right here is bs. You have no idea what drove the various choices that have been made, and you're starting your point off with baseless accusations which makes anyone reading (or at least me) have significantly less respect for whatever comes after it. In what world does a sports franchise not care about legacy and longevity of that franchise... Do you think FIFA or Madden are as old as they are because they continuously disregard long-term growth? Because all they care about is short-term rewards? I'll grant you that some decisions fall that way, but definitely not all of them. In fact, most of them are about long-term value in the product. It's business and resources suicide not to...

Not allocating a bigger budget to make both backyards/kumites and Career and Universe possible is a choice.

Bigger budgets don't solve every problem. Kumite and Backyard are mostly art/venues, which is an ENTIRELY different team than career. And different again from the people who'd be able to build a universe mode. More money/time doesn't always mean we can even find the people qualified for such large endeavors, or that they'd have been the next priority.

What's also a choice is using whatever resources are available to make a one-and-done scripted Career

Career is actually a brutally expensive feature. It's the culmination of nearly every division of content creation on the team, and often in very specific scenarios not seen in other modes. It's likely the single most resource consuming entity in the game, and we've devoted incredible resources the last few cycles to improve it. I'm sorry it's not what you want, but it's absolutely been a priority, and has improved tremendously, in my opinion. Is it the perfect career experience in a sports game? No.

All of those are choices, poor choices, that in no way cater to hardcores, no matter what semantic games people want to play.

This here's the real deal. Why should they? I'm not going to say many choices don't cater to hardcores. They don't. But I get the very strong impression you think they're bad because they don't cater to hardcores. Or at least, to your group of hardcore. Except for removing movesets and stats from offline CAFs. Boggles my mind...