The GC initiative, incidentally, has been a busted flush until about a month ago. Not sure if I'm meant to say so but it seems only fair. All of us had voiced very strong concerns about the GC role being a title and very little else. Sure we had these meet-ups and hands-on play time, but I'm not sure if our words carried any more weight because we were GCs - any leverage we had was off our own backs (and those of you whose ideas I nicked and said were mine).
The way that the GameChanger's system has formed has not helped its reputation, as fundamentally the programme as such seemed to occur in the buildup to FIFA 10. The gamechangers group itself slowly started to form over the last year and a half - but the initial affect of the gamechangers, whether it was a busted flush or not, has been clear since when it started - and that is this.
The primary thing which the gamechangers have done thus far is that the gamechangers communicate with the community in regards to the next game. We've had this both years now - as soon as the first embargo ends, we get a huge amount of information from various people.
Both years, unfortunately, and I hope unintentionally, the game was probably bigged up more than it should have been - or, worse still, EA screwed it up between the playtest and release as has been constantly suggested.
Whether the gamechangers felt it or not, what they did immediately have purely on the basis that they played the game early, was power. They have power within the community and therefore they also have considerable leverage with EA - if they are willing to wield it.
The main danger of the gamechangers is that it centralises power with the wrong people. That important stuff is lost because it is overriden by an ordained few - and when I see gamechangers acting as basically EA's bitch - I cannot help but be concerned.
The mere concept that I could have to argue with two gamechangers (Glen and Lee) over whether EA had screwed up on their promise to be have the user part of the pro passing 'hardcoded on for all online games' is ridiculous and it is difficult to have a conversation like that and think you are talking to someone who still sees these things rationally.
Recently it has started to get going to an extent; I don't want to say anything like we are controlling or influencing what's in the game yet, but certainly we're making ourselves heard. You'd be surprised at where some of the negativity is coming from too. Perhaps for some of the GCs there is a sense of duty in terms of being mediators between the community and EA, which is why publically there does seem to be too much of the devil's advocate or even defending EA. But certainly there is plenty of ranting about the game within the GC forums.
I do wish some of it was more public though. It would do the GCs as a whole a big favour if we made it known that we have a lot of issues with the game and explained them in objective and clear detail. The longer GCs operate as nannies/UN peacekeepers, the more entrenched will be the idea that we are on a payroll of some sort (which you could argue, as Placebo did, that we are).
The problem is - having plenty of rants in the GC Forum - is more or less doing EA a favour - and this is one of the things which pisses me off. While I can understand that the GC's probably need somewhere to talk where they can disclose secretive information, there is absolutely no reason for the GC's to hide away after the game has released to the extent which many of them did.
It would be much better to have these discussions out in the open - there is a total lack of good conversation on the forum at the moment - and that is only being excacerbated by, more or less, a large group of the best posters moving to a different, secluded forum.
Afterall, if I was to try to explain to someone what Lee thinks of the game, I'd probably have to say he thought it was a masterpiece. A 9.5/10. This may or not be true - but at the end of the day his use as a gamechanger to EA is blatantly obvious. He gives them a very favourable review - and he hides most of his criticism from the public. Great.
In fact, the more and more people EA make gamechangers the less and less competent, constructive criticism is made of the game in public. Many gamechangers are doing themselves no favours with the way they are talking to the rest of the community. The fact is, 95% of the time I see a GC post on the forum they are protecting EA. I can see why EA want the gamechanger programme - it's done them no end of favours so far. Respected, often critical community members hiding their criticism and acting almost as PR-men for them, followed by them giving favourable reviews (in most cases)?
I'm just waiting til I can realistically say - this feature is great - and it's here because of the gamechangers. Two years into the programme's birth (though it may have only just really started), I'm entirely unconvinced - and see at least as much harm, as good coming out of the scheme. I would have thought, that between the gamechangers, especially considering Lee and Tom, that the assisted/manual farce should be high on the agenda and easily sortable - that's if the GC programme is worth anything.
).
