Why is the name EA so tainted?

[Shalafi]

Pointless drivel removed

It's one thing to say bandwagoneering, it's quite another to ignore cause and effect in action. If there are no issues to be railed against, then there's no mob to rail against them. Since there is an issue, a mob rises up and rails against them.

Simple cause and effect.

If EA publishes a good game, I'll buy it, if they publish a bad game, I will not buy it and crap on it, really simple.

Only an idiot would think of a game publisher in terms of "being the enemy". Enemy is a term that should be applied to something with higher stakes it, not to an entity as trivial as a video game publisher.

Every publisher has made mistakes at some point or another, but that's why forums like this exist, to hold them accountable and to inform other potential customers of those mistakes and issues that exist.

When you post in extremes and generalize, your posts don't actually add anything to the debate in this thread, but rather detract from the constructive debate that has been going on in it. Especially with going off on wild tangents by referencing imagined "enemies".

I would say that EA isn't an enemy, just a publisher that can make better decisions not just business decisions, but in the overall handling of their business from the top down. Let's not forget that just because they make lots of money that it's neccessarily good for us as gamers if we're not given a quality product.

Case in point, I bought Dragon Age Origins, I LOVED it, great game, great overall experience. Didn't buy Dragon Age 2, heard quality went down the shitter on this game. I don't have Mass Effect 2, since I didn't really like the first game. It's really simple, make a good game, I will buy it, make a bad one, I'll avoid it.

It's right to demand a quality product, it's a right we can demand at any time by withholding our dollars, that just needs to happen on a mass scale for it to have any effect. Companies only listen when you affect their bottom line, only then can true change be effected.

 

[Starcrossed]

When a company (or an individual, for that matter) upholds financial gain in relation to other goals, there is almost always some type of serious loss.

 

[Thuleman]

It's right to demand a quality product, it's a right we can demand at any time by withholding our dollars, that just needs to happen on a mass scale for it to have any effect. Companies only listen when you affect their bottom line, only then can true change be effected.

What you say is correct. At the same time though you did present Spore as one truly bad example of an EA published game, yet it was so profitable that expansions and spinoff happened. How do you explain that what you consider to be very bad quality sold so well?

Here is how I explain it; "Horrid DRM" is a term that only matters to an extremely small sliver of the market (enthusiasts, as opposed to casual gamers) and thus it becomes irrelevant from a publishing perspective. Yes, the CEO defended the DRM scheme to PC game media outlets in an effort to do a little damage control, but the target market for Spore weren't people who read [H] and thus the outrage over it on [H] and sites like it has negligible real world effect on Spore or the way EA does business.

When a company (or an individual, for that matter) upholds financial gain in relation to other goals, there is almost always some type of serious loss.

This couldn't be more false if you tried. Profit maximization is the overarching goal of any business and to sustain that goal all else follows. Meaning that if a company makes a shitty decision then it jeopardizes their ability to maximize profit and hence they are less likely to make such a decision on purpose (as opposed to by accident/ignorance).

 

[Starcrossed]

When a company (or an individual, for that matter) upholds financial gain in relation to other goals, there is almost always some type of serious loss.

This couldn't be more false if you tried. Profit maximization is the overarching goal of any business and to sustain that goal all else follows. Meaning that if a company makes a shitty decision then it jeopardizes their ability to maximize profit and hence they are less likely to make such a decision on purpose (as opposed to by accident/ignorance).

Profit maximization isn't the overarching goal of any company. If vapidity is your desire, then continue with that type of sophistry. Products and services suffer when they are merely a means to an end. EA is perceived as a vacant organization, a primary reason that people dislike them. They perpetuate a type of inner loss in the community and, therefore, have become an enemy to it. At some point, we are all pushed to define ourselves. The way that we choose to do this lives in many of our actions.

 

[Gnasher]

Because they act like they are Big Brother of the gaming world.

 

[AdmiralTiger]

They bought Kesmai Studios in 1999, killed it in 2001. I was playing a semi-decent game called Air Warrior III. I played it online then. Heck, I was flying in-game on 9/11 when someone said something about the first WTC towers being hit by a "Cessna". The game was killed off almost 3 months later.

10 years of grudge against EA, and the only two ways for my hate for them to go away: They die, or I die.

 

[Arioch]

I actually felt sad when I heard that EA was shutting down Origin System here in Austin. They made some great games in the 80's and 90's.

 

[hfk]

Really, bandwagoneering is the best you can do? Horrid DRM scheme of one title of the thousands of titles EA has released over the years is destroying PC gaming as we know it? One customer out of multiple millions experiencing a problem with forum account and game account being linked (which I still don't consider to be a problem at all) is destroying PC gaming as we know it?

This is nothing more than populist mob mentality. It's fashionable to be against EA (because as I wrote earlier, one has to have an enemy) and so people do it.

EA publishes games, you play them. Some games are better than others. Some games could have been better if given more time. None of this is any different than any other publisher out there and the only reason EA is getting grief is because they are a powerhouse in publishing so more people use their products and hence there's a larger pool of people who then complain.

Excluding indie games there isn't a publisher out there who hasn't gotten grief over something or other, just like there isn't a perfect business out there period. At the end of the day any company is run by people who at times make decisions with which someone disagrees. That's just business as usual, no conspiracy here.

You dismiss the fundamental concept of measure, and you ignore all of the arguments presented in this thread and others EXCEPT for the latest case to make the criticism seem unfair for hating them for just that. There's no way you aren't doing that deliberately. You couldn't do a better job at exposing your agenda.

 

[mikey976]

ea is the graveyard of development studios

 

[bugsy siegel]

Can't speak for other folks, but I hate EA because their customer service is deplorable. Their automated email response sucks and offers completely irrelevant answers. And if you should happen to lose a password and ask the auto-responder to email your password to you, it never does; therefore you are locked out of a game you paid good money for.

Also, even when you have your password, it doesn't always work! Sometime it works, sometimes it doesn't. Crazy.

 

[Thuleman]

You dismiss the fundamental concept of measure, and you ignore all of the arguments presented in this thread and others EXCEPT for the latest case to make the criticism seem unfair for hating them for just that. There's no way you aren't doing that deliberately. You couldn't do a better job at exposing your agenda.

Doh, of course I am doing it deliberately because I differ in opinion, my agenda is to present that opinion (and corrupt your children with it). Do you think people simply post random thoughts that aren't connected to anything when they type stuff up? Seriously now. My agenda is also pro business and pro personal responsibility rather than having government nanny one through life. The whole Australian "contracts have to be fair" is the pinnacle of government interference in people's lives created by populist politicians grasping at straws to be re-elected. Whether something is fair or not is a personal decision and it can't possibly be a government mandate.

Criticism of EA is like criticism of Microsoft or any other sufficiently large company. When a company has a sufficiently large market penetration there will statistically be a number of people not happy with their products/services. That really shouldn't be news to anyone.

Profit maximization isn't the overarching goal of any company.

What you probably meant to say is that it isn't the goal of every company rather than any, but even then it would be incorrect. Even non-profits are all about making profit except they spend it before the end of the reporting period.

As a general rule business works in this order of importance; be profitable, be legal, be ethical, be charitable. Saying that profit doesn't matter as long as you do good is naive and frankly oblivious as to how the real world actually works. Most all companies work based on profit maximization where the understanding is that they will not take actions that could hurt profits. Following that EA would not take deliberate action if the known outcome would diminish profits. Companies are run by people and people at times make bad decisions (by accident or ignorance) but that's just life there's no greater conspiracy to "destroy PC gaming as we know it" (again, what does that even mean).

 

[JoNo216]

Mostly I don't like them because they are mostly responsible for the awful DRM that has been coming out lately... Although they have been getting off the ban-wagon a little as of late, or people just don't care so much anymore.

EA usually makes games more appealing to the mass market which usually upsets PC gamers like us, because they lack in features and creativity that we like oh so much.

They release a new Madden every year and somehow get people to buy a full priced game for a basic roster upgrade.

 

[Starcrossed]

Thuleman, I used "any," in the exact same sense that you used "any" in post 43, denoting all. Fact is, companies that I have been a part of have had higher goals than profit: goals for the community, goals for the employees, and goals for the customers. If you are going to chip at semantics, check your own first, please. The primary goal of many non-profits is to benefit a cause, not to create revenue.

When I do "for-profit" business selling things on eBay I donate a large portion of the sale to environmental preservation. Is my primary concern maximizing my profit? No. Am I profitable and successful in my sales? You betcha.

How can legality rank above ethicality, when ethicality, in fact, determines legality?

A gaming company needs to be focused on creating superior games, not on profit maximization. Otherwise, it makes inferior ethical decisions and creates a mediocre product. Much like we have seen from EA.

Businesses are forced to choose between ethical behavior and financial profit, as many times, the two are mutually exclusive. Life forces business to define itself, as it forces humans to define themselves. Which will you choose? I think we already know the answer to that question, and it is a shame that you press others to follow suit.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm with Fail on this one as well. Cause and effect, a bunch of people don't like what EA do to smaller businesses they buy out, how games have become more casual/mainstream and their part in that.

It's only natural, it's natural for a profit based business to become like this and it's only natural for customers to complain about it.

 

[Thuleman]

Getting a bit off of the EA topic here but it's worth discussion because the concepts relate.

When my "for-profit" business sells things on eBay I donate a large portion of the sale to environmental preservation. Is its primary concern maximizing my profit? No. Am I profitable and successful in my sales? You betcha.

What are your thoughts on eBay/Paypal then? You are obviously using them and yet they are far worse in removing rights from customers than EA has ever been. No problem there because they let you generate profit in the process?

How can legality rank above ethicality, when ethicality, in fact, determines legality?

Law determines legality. For many circumstances there is no law. Statues only go so far, one can't possibly predict every possible scenario and create legislation for it which is why common law is based on precedent and how it can be applied to the case under consideration. A prime example for this is that abortions are legal but many don't find them ethical. (Please let's not get into the abortion and capital punishment and whatever debate, it's merely to illustrate that law ranks above ethics.)

A gaming company needs to be focused on creating superior games, not on profit maximization. Otherwise, it makes inferior ethical decisions and creates a mediocre product. Much like we have seen from EA.

I understand what you are saying, it's just that you are incorrect in your assumptions.
Any company needs to create products and services that customers demand and are willing to pay for. EA does just that. It creates products for a wide variety of consumers, not just for [H] users. You may not find Tonka Truck Rally (made up name) appealing but lots of parents will probably buy it for their children. In that case EA satisfied a demand, just not yours, but you can hardly blame them for creating a product that you find mediocre because you apply entirely different standards than the target market.

It's like saying that you hate Ford because they don't build vehicles to the standard of Lamborghinis. If you want a Lamborghini then go buy one, but don't stand there demanding that Ford builds one.

Businesses are forced to choose between ethical behavior and financial profit, as many times, the two are mutually exclusive.

This is incorrect.
While it is true that recent history, starting with Enron, has shown that some businesses chose short term financial gain over ethics a thorough review of businesses that have been successful and highly profitable in the long run will show that those businesses value ethics above short terms gains.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you will be able to maximize profits over the long run if you do everything right (legal and ethical). If you look at any Fortune 500 company you will find that they all value ethics, employees, etc. while still making mad money. Proctor & Gamble, General Electric, etc. etc. Does that mean that they have a 100% spotless record? No, then again, who does? Profit maximization by definition takes the long run view on what will generate the most sustained profit for a company. When decisions are made stakeholders other than the company (and its shareholders) are considered because those stakeholders influence profit.

In fact, they whole profit and ethics are often mutually exclusive is a viewpoint that's not founded in reality but rather in (often liberal) political bias.

The way this relates to EA is that it isn't in EA's interest to create a game that doesn't sell. Why is this so hard to understand is beyond me. Do you really think a bunch of execs sit around and say "let's shaft the gamers by releasing a product that they don't want and they won't buy"?

Games aren't created in a vacuum. Shitty developers make shitty games. The process is simple really; EA signs a developer to develop a game. The dev gets working on it, but then overruns the budget. Now what? Throw good money after bad money? Sunk cost dictates that you don't do that. Instead you release whatever it is the dev has done and hope for the best while making sure to not repeat the signing or management mistakes that have been made that led to the dev failing.

 

[Shalafi]

Getting a bit off of the EA topic here but it's worth discussion because the concepts relate.


What are your thoughts on eBay/Paypal then? You are obviously using them and yet they are far worse in removing rights from customers than EA has ever been. No problem there because they let you generate profit in the process?



Law determines legality. For many circumstances there is no law. Statues only go so far, one can't possibly predict every possible scenario and create legislation for it which is why common law is based on precedent and how it can be applied to the case under consideration. A prime example for this is that abortions are legal but many don't find them ethical. (Please let's not get into the abortion and capital punishment and whatever debate, it's merely to illustrate that law ranks above ethics.)


I understand what you are saying, it's just that you are incorrect in your assumptions.
Any company needs to create products and services that customers demand and are willing to pay for. EA does just that. It creates products for a wide variety of consumers, not just for [H] users. You may not find Tonka Truck Rally (made up name) appealing but lots of parents will probably buy it for their children. In that case EA satisfied a demand, just not yours, but you can hardly blame them for creating a product that you find mediocre because you apply entirely different standards than the target market.

It's like saying that you hate Ford because they don't build vehicles to the standard of Lamborghinis. If you want a Lamborghini then go buy one, but don't stand there demanding that Ford builds one.

This is incorrect.
While it is true that recent history, starting with Enron, has shown that some businesses chose short term financial gain over ethics a thorough review of businesses that have been successful and highly profitable in the long run will show that those businesses value ethics above short terms gains.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you will be able to maximize profits over the long run if you do everything right (legal and ethical). If you look at any Fortune 500 company you will find that they all value ethics, employees, etc. while still making mad money. Proctor & Gamble, General Electric, etc. etc. Does that mean that they have a 100% spotless record? No, then again, who does? Profit maximization by definition takes the long run view on what will generate the most sustained profit for a company. When decisions are made stakeholders other than the company (and its shareholders) are considered because those stakeholders influence profit.

In fact, they whole profit and ethics are often mutually exclusive is a viewpoint that's not founded in reality but rather in (often liberal) political bias.

The way this relates to EA is that it isn't in EA's interest to create a game that doesn't sell. Why is this so hard to understand is beyond me. Do you really think a bunch of execs sit around and say "let's shaft the gamers by releasing a product that they don't want and they won't buy"?

Games aren't created in a vacuum. Shitty developers make shitty games. The process is simple really; EA signs a developer to develop a game. The dev gets working on it, but then overruns the budget. Now what? Throw good money after bad money? Sunk cost dictates that you don't do that. Instead you release whatever it is the dev has done and hope for the best while making sure to not repeat the signing or management mistakes that have been made that led to the dev failing.

I don't have enough /facepalms for this post.

 

[TheGreySpectre]

Publishers cater to what people buy. If you have anyone to blame for the current state of gaming it is the general populace. Games have progressed past being niche market to being a multibillion dollar industry and with that comes gamers who don't read gaming news, don't know how their computer works and generally could not care less about drm as long as it is not interfering with their ability to use their software.

Thuleman makes some very good points.

 

[Tudz]

If you have anyone to blame for the current state of gaming it is the general populace.

I already blame the general populace for so many things, now I have to blame them for gaming as well? Damn

 

[Starcrossed]

Law determines legality. For many circumstances there is no law. Statues only go so far, one can't possibly predict every possible scenario and create legislation for it which is why common law is based on precedent and how it can be applied to the case under consideration. A prime example for this is that abortions are legal but many don't find them ethical. (Please let's not get into the abortion and capital punishment and whatever debate, it's merely to illustrate that law ranks above ethics.)]

Abortion remains legal because there are intelligible arguments that raise great suspicion as to whether or not it is, indeed, unethical. In at least some cases, it can be argued that it is an ethical resolution.

 

[hfk]

Doh, of course I am doing it deliberately because I differ in opinion

You shouldn't deny facts and reason because you have a different opinion. Which sane paying customer would argue like you're doing in this subject? Obviously nobody.

My agenda is to present that opinion (and corrupt your children with it). Do you think people simply post random thoughts that aren't connected to anything when they type stuff up?

Thanks for confirming that you are insane. And yes that's what insane people do, and that's exactly what I believe you are doing, you can't reason and you lack the ability to distinguish things from one another, in this case with big companies. We supply arguments as to why EA is worse than other companies. You on the other hand put them all in the same box. Insane.

My agenda is also pro business and pro personal responsibility rather than having government nanny one through life. The whole Australian "contracts have to be fair" is the pinnacle of government interference in people's lives created by populist politicians grasping at straws to be re-elected. Whether something is fair or not is a personal decision and it can't possibly be a government mandate.

Sure why don't you bring government into this you perfect child of sunshine. God forbid a government wants to enforce contracts to be fair????? No sane and uncorrupt man or woman would be against this in this day and age. This is offtopic but I'll go there actually. One of governments' most important job today is to regulate corporations so that insane people like you can't sell anything you want under any obscured conditions you want to gain profit. Enforcing fair contracts would be a step in the right direction in the process of regulating corporations, and we need the US to go in that direction ASAP. Unfortunately this won't happen under the current system because most politicians in the GOP and democrats alike have been bought off by special interests. Some special interests being greedy corporations like EA. I'm not saying EA is lobbying government, I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if they do in some way or another.

As a general rule business works in this order of importance; be profitable, be legal, be ethical, be charitable. Saying that profit doesn't matter as long as you do good is naive and frankly oblivious as to how the real world actually works.

Judging that perception as naive and even wrong is another great projection of your own insanity. A business operates in any away the individual business owner wants it to operate. Some people actually do what they do because they like it and because they want to contribute. Try to get your head around that if at all possible.

 

[MartinX]

I think the EA hate comes mainly from two places:

Firstly, the they invented the whole: "Stop innovating, just make a new one that's only slightly different from the last one every year and charge full price for it, or make millions of pointless expansions" model that now rules the games industry. Which, to be fair they've tried to separate from over the last few years.

Secondly, google "ea spouse" (not ea louse, that's a different thing ): EA for a long time ran all it's studios almost like sweatshops, effectively keeping all it's teams in permanent crunch and making bonuses and stuff contingent on totally unrealistic deadlines.

Between those two things they serious fucked up their rep with both gamers and people inside the industry.

They've improved alot though, they've raised themselves up to now just being as mercenary and soulless as all the other big publishers.

The more immediate and specific hate is because we gamers will literally complain about anything, and as someone else said, EA has stuff out right now, so they have the spotlight, as soon as anybody else does anything the spotlight of hate will shift.

Edit: Also people get confused by the difference between Publishers and Developers.
Developers are companies that make games, Valve is a developer, Blizzard is a developer, Rockstar is a developer.
Publishers are companies that make money. EA is a publisher, Activision-Blizzard is a publisher, THQ is a publisher.
Developers get the money they need to make games off publishers, so the publisher controls the budgets and deadlines, the stronger the track record of the developer the more money and time they get to make the games and the bigger the portion of the profits they benefit from, the less powerful the position of the developer, the less time, money and reward they get.
The developers mission is to make the best game they can with the available resources.
The publishers mission, is to make the most money from the least expenditure.

 

[Numan]

Rage, and by proxy Bethesda, will likely also receive flak later on for the console association for rage. Such as I believe Carmack forcing the developers to play the game using controllers, to make that input the primary one supported.

How is this a BAD thing? I hate playing console FPS because of the damn controller, mostly because I will either twitch too little or 'over steer' trying to aim in the heat of running around. The Rage engine is multi platform and some of those platforms have controllers. It's not like the good ol' kb/m is being abandoned. It depends on the game too, some are better using a controller no matter what the system is, for example I prefer Batman AA with my corded 360 controller because it feels better (although the kb/m in that is pretty good for a 3rd person action game) and I prefer my Battlefield with a mouse because I can't aim worth a crap on a controller.

 

[hfk]

I think the EA hate comes mainly from two places:

Firstly, the they invented the whole: "Stop innovating, just make a new one that's only slightly different from the last one every year and charge full price for it, or make millions of pointless expansions" model that now rules the games industry. Which, to be fair they've tried to separate from over the last few years.

Secondly, google "ea spouse" (not ea louse, that's a different thing ): EA for a long time ran all it's studios almost like sweatshops, effectively keeping all it's teams in permanent crunch and making bonuses and stuff contingent on totally unrealistic deadlines.

Between those two things they serious fucked up their rep with both gamers and people inside the industry.

They've improved alot though, they've raised themselves up to now just being as mercenary and soulless as all the other big publishers.

The more immediate and specific hate is because we gamers will literally complain about anything, and as someone else said, EA has stuff out right now, so they have the spotlight, as soon as anybody else does anything the spotlight of hate will shift.

Nono, you see EA is just like Microsoft and also god damn the australian government with their fair contracts 'n'stuff! God damn communists!!!!

 

[limitedaccess]

How is this a BAD thing? I hate playing console FPS because of the damn controller, mostly because I will either twitch too little or 'over steer' trying to aim in the heat of running around. The Rage engine is multi platform and some of those platforms have controllers. It's not like the good ol' kb/m is being abandoned. It depends on the game too, some are better using a controller no matter what the system is, for example I prefer Batman AA with my corded 360 controller because it feels better (although the kb/m in that is pretty good for a 3rd person action game) and I prefer my Battlefield with a mouse because I can't aim worth a crap on a controller.

I think you misunderstood the point of my post, it was not about the issues I mentioned, but people's reactions to them.

To illustrate what I was referring to, start a post about a game being optimized for a game controller and not mouse/kb, and see how much outcry there is.

 

[PornoSatan]

Also people get confused by the difference between Publishers and Developers.
Developers are companies that make games, Valve is a developer, Blizzard is a developer, Rockstar is a developer.
Publishers are companies that make money. EA is a publisher, Activision-Blizzard is a publisher, THQ is a publisher.
Developers get the money they need to make games off publishers, so the publisher controls the budgets and deadlines, the stronger the track record of the developer the more money and time they get to make the games and the bigger the portion of the profits they benefit from, the less powerful the position of the developer, the less time, money and reward they get.
The developers mission is to make the best game they can with the available resources.
The publishers mission, is to make the most money from the least expenditure.

Agree.

 

[Shalafi]

I think the EA hate comes mainly from two places:

Firstly, the they invented the whole: "Stop innovating, just make a new one that's only slightly different from the last one every year and charge full price for it, or make millions of pointless expansions" model that now rules the games industry. Which, to be fair they've tried to separate from over the last few years.

Secondly, google "ea spouse" (not ea louse, that's a different thing ): EA for a long time ran all it's studios almost like sweatshops, effectively keeping all it's teams in permanent crunch and making bonuses and stuff contingent on totally unrealistic deadlines.

Between those two things they serious fucked up their rep with both gamers and people inside the industry.

They've improved alot though, they've raised themselves up to now just being as mercenary and soulless as all the other big publishers.

The more immediate and specific hate is because we gamers will literally complain about anything, and as someone else said, EA has stuff out right now, so they have the spotlight, as soon as anybody else does anything the spotlight of hate will shift.

Edit: Also people get confused by the difference between Publishers and Developers.
Developers are companies that make games, Valve is a developer, Blizzard is a developer, Rockstar is a developer.
Publishers are companies that make money. EA is a publisher, Activision-Blizzard is a publisher, THQ is a publisher.
Developers get the money they need to make games off publishers, so the publisher controls the budgets and deadlines, the stronger the track record of the developer the more money and time they get to make the games and the bigger the portion of the profits they benefit from, the less powerful the position of the developer, the less time, money and reward they get.
The developers mission is to make the best game they can with the available resources.
The publishers mission, is to make the most money from the least expenditure.

All that is just a cop out, NONE of that excuses putting out subpar products. No matter what, gamers deserve better, we have to hold both the publisher AND developer accountable, and we do that by spreading the word and voting with our wallets.

Seriously, nothing you said in that post really matters, even though the majority of it is true, the bottom line is still if a bad game gets put out, no matter the circumstances, it deserves to be judged on it's merits, all extraneous factors don't have anything to do with the bottom line from a gamer/consumer's point of view.

Should we all feel bad for the dev that got pushed hard to put out a subpar product and buy it anyway "just cause?"

Hell no.

 

[alienate]

And EA is the biggest...

I have to blame somebody for DA II and I choose to blame EA.

I'm just saying, Bioware makes a games in certain styles for 12 years. Within a couple years of being purchased by EA, they completely change course.

This. You would have never seen Bioware release a linear action/rpg like Dragon Age 2 in the old days. Then again, when I saw DA II release date being just 2 years away from the first I knew this would be the case.

 

[castun]

Well, they've bought out companies and their IPs, and then the sequels they release tend to be crap. There's already a ton of examples here, but the ones that come to mind of course are C&C (although I did enjoy the fact paced Generals, the rest afterwards were pretty meh IMHO) and SimCity. SimCity 4 was fun for a while, but it seemed like EZ Mode with the way you got monthly revenue rather than yearly, so you barely had to try.

Then there was the fact that EA has exclusive rights to nearly all of the US sports franchises so they're the only ones who can develop these games, and then turn around and cancel the PC versions a few years back. Even more annoying was how even before then, they were still using the PS2 graphics engine for all the PC versions which was incredibly annoying.

The last games I actually bought from them was DA:O & BFBC2 because there was so much positive feedback about them, and before that I think it was the Sims 2, so that was quite a gap.

 

[castun]

My agenda is also pro business and pro personal responsibility rather than having government nanny one through life. The whole Australian "contracts have to be fair" is the pinnacle of government interference in people's lives created by populist politicians grasping at straws to be re-elected. Whether something is fair or not is a personal decision and it can't possibly be a government mandate.

Well, when one company treats it's customers unfairly, sure you can just find another company that offers the same services or products. That's voting with your wallet. But what about when ALL companies of a particular industry are all doing the same unfair crap, whether it be through collusion, or as a 'Well, that's just the way things have been and will continue to be.'

Are you the type of person that sees any type of government regulation and involvement as bad? After all, corporations, companies, and banks, when left completely to their own devices and schemes, will ALWAYS act responsibly and do what's in the best interest of the consumer & the economy, right? Oh wait...

 

[Coreyk78]

Spotted this little gem on the EA website today, taken from the front page of their PC Games section.

The Broad Appeal of PC Games
Computer games have the potential to reach a wide range of players, including those who don’t consider themselves enough of a “gamer” to purchase a gaming console.

/facepalm

 

[phide]

There's some extremism on both sides here. As it stands, EA is actually one of the more consumer-focused publishers out there, at least in comparison to Ubisoft and Activision. Their EA Partners program is also, for the most part, a good thing, and seems to work out fairly well for independent developers who want to self-publish digitally but want someone else to handle the retail distribution end. The other guys just don't have anything like that at the moment.

Eventually, we can expect for things to start shifting around a bit. In two or three years, Ubisoft could very well be the publisher that gets the most respect from PC gamers and EA could very well be in 'last place' — it all depends on which way management wants the pendulum to swing. For the time being, I really don't have all that much to complain about with respect to EA. They, as a general rule, don't push out total shit, don't have a extremist view toward DRM (with more than a handful of the games they've published lacking any form of it) and for the most part seem to provide what developers need to do what they do.

At this point, I have no general quarrel with buying an EA-published game.

 

[DocSavage]

What got me annoyed with EA is when they started leaving features out of games and then selling them as DLC, though now I'm somewhat used to it and paid DLC is better than no DLC at all.

 

[Thuleman]

My agenda is to present that opinion (and corrupt your children with it).

Thanks for confirming that you are insane. And yes that's what insane people do, and that's exactly what I believe you are doing

I say this with utmost sincerity: If you truly believe what you wrote above then it's actually time to check your mental status. You hold the opinion that presenting an opinion different from your own is insane and you completely fail to detect sarcasm. This could point to some serious neurological issues and is worth checking out. That's about all that can be posted in reply to what you wrote.

 

[Starcrossed]

I say this with utmost sincerity: If you truly believe what you wrote above then it's actually time to check your mental status. You hold the opinion that presenting an opinion different from your own is insane and you completely fail to detect sarcasm. This could point to some serious neurological issues and is worth checking out. That's about all that can be posted in reply to what you wrote.

At least make an attempt to be creative with your retort, instead of saying in essence, "No, I'm not you are." Anyway, dogma be damned, there is a lot more than goes into running a business well than having the somewhat singular goal of maximizing profit.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Edit: Also people get confused by the difference between Publishers and Developers.
Developers are companies that make games, Valve is a developer, Blizzard is a developer, Rockstar is a developer.
Publishers are companies that make money. EA is a publisher, Activision-Blizzard is a publisher, THQ is a publisher.
Developers get the money they need to make games off publishers, so the publisher controls the budgets and deadlines, the stronger the track record of the developer the more money and time they get to make the games and the bigger the portion of the profits they benefit from, the less powerful the position of the developer, the less time, money and reward they get.
The developers mission is to make the best game they can with the available resources.
The publishers mission, is to make the most money from the least expenditure.

Except the lines get a bit blurry because some developers are self funded, like Valve and have no deadlines other than the ones they set themselves, as are many Indy studios.

The developers mission is not always about making the best game they can, these are businesses with possible investments outside of the publishing agreement and if they have shareholders or investors who are in partial control of the studio then ultimately the focus is likely to be making money and not making good games, these are not the same thing, especially with the boom in casual gaming.

 

[defiant007]

Bullfrog.....gone.

Westwood....gone.

Origins....gone.

Maxis....gone.

Pandemic....gone.

Studio's responsible for developing innovative genre defining games gobbled up by EA and shut down. Is it any wonder that gaming has begun to feel stale?

 

[Banyan]

they ruined bf series after bf2 thanks to their catering to the console market... but they aren't any better or worse than most other corporations, looking at profit margins above everything.

 

[Banyan]

Bullfrog.....gone.

Westwood....gone.

Origins....gone.

Maxis....gone.

Pandemic....gone.

Studio's responsible for developing innovative genre defining games gobbled up by EA and shut down. Is it any wonder that gaming has begun to feel stale?

they can only be gobbled up if those studios wanted to sell out for a payout. ea is just another capitalistic animal.

 

[Thuleman]

At least make an attempt to be creative with your retort, instead of saying in essence, "No, I'm not you are." Anyway, dogma be damned, there is a lot more than goes into running a business well than having the somewhat singular goal of maximizing profit.

Maximizing profit is the underlying and overarching goal. All else follows.

My argument is that EA is no better or worse than comparable companies in other industries. hfk's reply to that is that I am insane.

My argument is that when looking at a comparable company in another industry you will find an equal, if not larger amount, of people who are not satisfied with the product or service the company offers. hfk's reply to that is that I am insane.

My argument is that I am not willing to jump on the populist anti-EA bandwagon. hfk's reply to that is that I am insane.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Thuleman]

I can't be bothered to check my sources beyond Wikipedia but in this case I find Wikipedia fairly trustworthy since I assume that there will be plenty of fanbois for each studio to defend their e-honor if someone were to post something utterly wrong on those pages

Bullfrog.....gone.

Electronic Arts, Bullfrog's publisher, acquired the studio in January 1995.[1] Molyneux (Bufffrog founder) had become an Electronic Arts vice-president and consultant in 1994, after EA purchased a significant share of Bullfrog. Molyneux left Bullfrog in August 1997 to found Lionhead Studios whilst other members of the original team founded Mucky Foot Productions. The last titles to bear the Bullfrog logo were published in 2001. 2004 met the final end of Bullfrog when Electronic Arts combined their side studios into EA UK.

Yup, looks like conspiracy to end PC gaming as we know it to me. Either that or Molyneux cashed in and then took his money to become his own boss again.

Westwood....gone.

In August 1998, Westwood was acquired by Electronic Arts for $122.5 million in cash. At the time, Westwood had 5% to 6% of the PC game market.[1] In response to EA's buyout, many long-time Westwood employees quit and left Westwood Studios.

Westwood people abandoned ship (which, of course was EA's fault!!!!!1!1eleven!!), EA was left holding the bag and made the best of it by successfully commercializing C&C.

Origins....gone.

In 1997, they released one of the earliest and most successful graphical MMORPGs, Ultima Online. After this title, Electronic Arts decided that Origin would become an online-only company after the completion of Ultima IX in 1999. However, within a year's time, in part due to Ultima IX's poor reception [2], EA canceled all of Origin's new development projects, including Ultima Online 2, Privateer Online, and Harry Potter Online. Richard Garriott left Origin shortly after and founded Destination Games in 2000.

Wait..., wait ..., don't tell me ...
EA decided that a studio which had enormous proven success with online games would from now on develop online games. THAT'S UNDENIABLE PROOF THAT EA WANTS TO END PC GAMING AS WE KNOW IT!!!!

Maxis....gone.

I don't actually need Wikipedia for this one. Maxis isn't gone, it's alive and well selling The Sims universe products like mad.

Pandemic....gone.

Don't need Wikipedia for this one either. Pandemic released a couple three good games and the rest was lackluster at best. They were closed because they were neither innovative nor profitable. Simple really.

Studio's responsible for developing innovative genre defining games gobbled up by EA and shut down. Is it any wonder that gaming has begun to feel stale?

Yes, of course, because one publisher out of all publishers world wide is shutting down developers which aren't profitable gaming has begun to feel stale.

Innovation is irrelevant if it doesn't sell. If the market would rather play Call of Duty 17 than pay $60 for a game from an "innovative developer" then it's the market that decides who stays and who goes. Blaming a business for cutting its losses is just unreasonable (no, it's not insane, just unreasonable).