Andromeda was a financial success.

As I say, I can't be sure exactly what parts were edited as I don't have copies of the changed articles. I only know it was edited. He can dress it up all he likes but ultimately he was claiming people were fired, and it turned out to be false, so no, it demonstrably wasn't 100% factual. The fact the author himself felt he had to edit it should really answer that question.

The question of misinformation etc doesn't actually depend on the specific edits - it was more the fact that multiple edits after the article went to print implies that they were trigger-happy with its release and weren't running the right due diligence (effectively just poor journalism). The argument is that he was in such a hurry to get it out and start pulling in the clicks that he cut corners on the article's veracity. I don't think anyone is actually saying the article is a complete fabrication or whatever you were getting at.

Well given you don't like the game why does it matter to you? Unless you want to do a suikoden and be happy other people won't be able to enjoy more Mass Effect.

yeah that's why for me August is the month of truth I think either we'll get DLC or something announced or we'll likely get nothing at all but I've got to admit after August I'll likely stop following or watching out for stuff relating to MEA so closely as there likely won't be anything to follow after that. As worrying about it is getting boring and tiring. That won't mean I won't keep an eye out fo it and buy it when it comes only that I just wont be following it quite so closely. I'll just be focusing on enjoying what we've got more than what is or isn't coming.

In his defence he has actually done some broadly good articles of a similar nature in the past.

When you take all of the elements together - his prior good work, his inability to handle being wrong (i.e. the NeoGAF thing), the random edits of his article, the insistence that no DLC will be coming with attached immediate get-out clauses, and his bizarre behaviour between releasing the article and now... honestly, my overwhelming suspicion was that he wrote that article in good faith but it turned out one or more of his sources were that Sinclair Networks thing and his desire to grab clicks trumped his due diligence that may have uncovered what Sinclair were prior to article release. He's now tied his name to a story that was written on the words of a hoaxer.

He's already shown that he prefers to go on the offensive rather than admitting a mistake (multiple times in fact) and the fact remains that if he really did standby his article then he could have done just that - stand by and let the eventual bad news vindicate him. Instead he's screwing around with editing his live article to say totally different things and sticking screenshots of forums on his twitter. Like, seriously, why would he even care what some nerds think?

So for anyone saying that MEA was a failure or that EA is "padding" it's results by lumping it in with other games, look at this EA earnings call from February, 2017 about Titanfall 2. They used very specific language when talking about the disappointing sales of Titanfall 2.

files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/4624688365x0x926062/D62107D7-CCA4-49A5-8D8D-87D0AFAE7A7E/EA_Transcript_Q317.pdf

"Yes. So clearly, we saw a very large gross margin improvement in the quarter. That's a combination of higher digital as we just discussed, both in
terms of full game downloads, and higher extra content, in the form of Ultimate Team. It also is, as you called out, we sold less Titanfall 2 than we expected, and we sold more Battlefield 1 than we expected. And Battlefield 1 is a higher margin product for us. And so, that acted as a way of
improving the margin."

Here, again.

"Net sales for the quarter were $2.07 billion, a new record for the Company. The outperformance versus our expectation was driven by Battlefield
1 and FIFA 17, offset by Titanfall 2." Notice how they specifically say that Titanfall 2 under-performed.

So why would they not have "padded" the statistics for Titanfall 2 as they supposedly have for MEA? The evidence is clear, people.

We don't actually know that. Compared to his behaviour on everything else, he was very quick to bash out an article explaining that his article was still 124% legit despite literally saying the exact same thing as the hoax. But as I say, it's just a suspicion based on his behaviour so far - behaviour that doesn't really make sense in any other context. He has fallen for hoaxes before and his behaviour back then mirrored what we see now.

As for the proven false thing - I really don't know why you're having such an issue getting this, you've even quoted an example of him doing just that. Unless the argument is that Jason doesn't understand how to speak english properly, talking about 'Downsizing' a studio would typically imply people are being fired and there is literally no reason why someone would report that if they didn't intend to say that. Such a change in terms would be unacceptable in a contract, for instance, and the fact he openly admitted that was why he was editing his article should be an indication of how important the change was. You can't really sit there droning on about how everything he says is accurate when he's clearly doing stuff like this, come on. 

The reason why people are willing to believe the stuff about troubled dev is that it actually fits with what we know. There were clearly parts of Andromeda that were'nt worked out and it's release state was pretty bad, even by RPG standards. The explanation he offered fits, and lends credence to the idea that he talked to actual devs on the project despite us not knowing who they are.

However, what he's saying now doesn't make a great deal of sense - EA's track record of DLC is self-evident, and he's asking us to believe what he's saying despite it representing massive change of tack for EA and no further corroborating evidence. He even sticks get-out clauses into a claim that can only ever be true or false, which renders it essentially meaningless (logically the same thing as saying you're a vegetarian, except those occasions where you eat meat). As this article in the thread now shows, there doesn't even appear to be any financial losses to back his claim up.

He could still be proven correct, even if he had just been guessing... but the point really is that anonymous sources only really work when they're used to explain a situation already known to be true, not to push something that hasn't been established yet.

Tbh I don't really understand what you're saying here. He makes a point of stating there will be no DLC then covers himself saying that 'plans can always change' etc - this is not, by any sane person who can genuinely comprehend english's standard, equivalent to saying he doesn't know.

As for the rest of it - it sounds like you're saying that you correctly deduced all the stuff from his article before he actually posted it, and appear to be confused why no-one else did the same. I don't really have to explain how nuts that sounds, right?



I'm sure some people were acting like this. But unless taking screenshots of people questioning them and posting them on twitter is the done thing for journalists in Brazil, I'm afraid suggesting that all of this is about people just not being able to handle the truth requires one to ignore so much of what has been going on that either one's motivations or intelligence becomes questionable.

I mean, think through what you've just posted there. You've literally just made an argument for why a journalist should never have to cite their references. 

We're getting to a point the fanboys/fangirls who are angry are under the delusion they'll get the game they want next time if this one fails--they want it to. What they don't understand is that if this game did truly fail, it would probably mean no more Mass Effect--ever. Yes, the game's almost certainly turning a profit. Maybe the neckbeard rage would have credence if some of the high-level developers who worked on the game were let go from Bioware, but so far that's not the case.

Tbh, I haven't got a clue what you're on about now. You contradict yourself above in the italicised sections. He makes a specific point that no DLC will be coming, then adds that DLC might be coming. If you really cannot comprehend the issue there then I honestly don't know what else to tell you... but regardless, he is covering himself. I don't know why you think the fact he said all this across several articles and responses means anything.



This isn't really the point that was being made. Jason didn't just randomly throw out a few lines saying that MEA was in a rough patch, his article was detailed and covered specific elements that I personally found to be lacking in the game. As a software developer myself, I recognised this kind of management fuckup. So ultimately, the choices in my head were that either he's crafted a very, very good fake article, or he's actually speaking to devs. I assumed that he had nothing to gain by fabricating the lot and took it as at least partially true. I suspect others did the same.

His subsequent communications - the reddit thing, that weird shit with Twitter and the hoax etc - do not sound like they add up. Again, I suspect other people felt the same.

I don't think he is. Covering himself makes it sould that he will be right either way, DLC or no DLC. But he won't. But I understand your confusion. When he says there won't be a DLC, it's short term. It's no DLC in the works right now. And so, it's impossible that a major DLC will be announced for next week, or even in August. If that happens, he would have been wrong.

When he says plans might change, it would mean that EA would decide to make a DLC, would work on it, and release it much latter. Say, November or even next year. If that happens, then there will be a DLC but he woudn't have been wrong.

It's a matter of timing. And of course, if a major DLC is release soon and he tries to say plans change and he wasn't wrong, then I'd say he is being deceitful. 

At this point I'm as much waiting to watch crow being eaten as I am waiting for a DLC announcement and the attempts at spin that'll be released.

According to the CFO the BW Montreal aren't "no more", they're in a new studio. From the Q&A;

Q: I was wondering, can you tease out what you mentioned earlier on the step-up in OpEx maybe on the R&D side with the new genres. And perhaps how much of the increase is more a timing issue versus a higher run rate for R&D?

A: So we will have a slightly higher run rate for R&D. We're building out a new studio in Montréal, as we've told everyone. And we've hired over 100 people into that studio that are brand-new to EA. This is to build the new IP around Jade Raymond's team that she's been building. I was in that studio last month. And it's a wonderful new addition to our team. And we brought our BioWare Montréal team into that same facility. So they now all sit in one new studio together. We're obviously investing in Anthem, which everyone got a chance to see at E3. That's out of the BioWare Edmonton team and are very excited -- they're very excited. We'll see some increases around that in terms of spending. And then we're continuing to invest across all of our network and platform activities. I don't see any of those going beyond the targets that we've talked about, trying to keep R&D expense in the 21% to 22% of revenue range, but it is -- the goal is to drive new revenue. And if for some reason we weren't able to drive new revenue, clearly, that would be overspending, but we're very confident that we can drive new revenue around the action genre and continuing live service build-out across all of our products.