Can you imagine a world *without* EA?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

This is more or less the scene that runs through my head every time the topic of bloated game publishing conglomerates comes up.

And when it does, there's inevitably *somebody* who cries:

"What!? How on Earth would we get on without overstuffed companies trying to stereotype an entire generation of people into a neat little 'demographic' and sell them homogenized products!?"

(My bias is showing, but W.E.)

Point is, I don't see the need for these kind of companies anymore. At all. I could be missing something entirely- but there it is.

Do you mean a world in which EA never existed? Because that would honestly kind of suck. They put out some great games back in the day. I still remember "Strike Fleet" on the C64 back before most of the users on this board were born. :) Fatal Rewind on the Genesis was really cool, too. It did the "time rewind" mechanic long before Prince of Persia or even Blinx. I think never having had EA would be pretty crappy.

If they were to cease to exist now, on the other hand? I do imagine it, every night in my greatest dreams. :P

The latter, yes. They've served their purpose and they need to die quietly :P

Yah, ANOTHER "Hey, don't you all hate big publishers?! I sure hate big publishers! Who agrees that big publishers are bad!?!" thread...

*Fun fact: All three of those link's are from the first ten pages in The Escapist Gaming Section (so within the last three days as of this post)

Seriously, without EA, the gaming world would be a much worse place. They're one of the few big companies who are actually taking some risks with IPs (all of these are new IPs either developed by or published by EA within the last five years):

Crysis
Spore
Skate
Army of Two
Dead Space
Dragon Age
Mirror's Edge
Dantes Inferno

(For fun, here is a list of EVERY EA game created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_games If you can look at that list and tell me that not ONE of their games is a game that you have loved, I will take this all back and join you in your "I Hate EA" campaign).

Sure, not all of these were home-runs but they're pumping out original IPs (with big risks such as Mirror's Edge) at a much faster rate then just about any other publisher or developer and this is just present day stuff. They are also expected to release two new IPs this year (Secret World and Overstrike).

There is plenty of room in this world for the big dogs AND the tiny one person garage developers. Bitch and moan about EA all you want but the reality is that big publishers ARE necessary in today's gaming world. Don't like it? Don't buy their games.

Oh yay, ANOTHER "Look at me I can get pissy about cultural trends!" guy.

Seriously, EA contributes little innovation and risks NOTHING.

Crysis- Super high def shooter.
Spore- Stripped down to a glorified art program.
Skate- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater's most recent bastardized descendent!
Army of Two- A shooter. But with co-op!
Dead Space- Resi Evil in space. Oh, but you're shooting off limbs instead of eyeballs/faces.
Dragon Age- Standard RPG. Don't even pretend it isn't.
Mirror's Edge- Didn't play it, don't care about it, and it was supposedly a commercial/critical/cult failure anyway.
Dantes Inferno- Failure on multiple levels and had the worst and most obnoxious ad campaign of any game in recent history.

For fun, go look up that meme listing studios EA's metaphorically capped in the head.

EA are much like cerberus...a necicary evil

is it me

or are people more negativly biased against EA/Bioware than they are gainst Activision/Blizard..Im not seeing so many Diablo 3 hate threads

Oh I dislike Activision plenty. Diablo 3's ending makes no sense whatsoever for a Diablo game, the "Angels" are contrived and ridiculous now, and the whole "health blobs" thing still doesn't sit well with me.

Still not as bad a fuck up as ME3'd ending/squadmates though, so it stands to reason there's a discrepancy.

[quote="Emiscary" post="9.375144.14554622"]Oh yay, ANOTHER "Look at me I can get pissy about cultural trends!" guy.

Seriously, EA contributes little innovation and risks NOTHING.

Crysis- Super high def shooter.
Spore- Stripped down to a glorified art program.
Skate- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater's most recent bastardized descendent!
Army of Two- A shooter. But with co-op!
Dead Space- Resi Evil in space. Oh, but you're shooting off limbs instead of eyeballs/faces.
Dragon Age- Standard RPG. Don't even pretend it isn't.
Mirror's Edge- Didn't play it, don't care about it, and it was supposedly a commercial/critical/cult failure anyway.
Dantes Inferno- Failure on multiple levels and had the worst and most obnoxious ad campaign of any game in recent history.

So what videogame company do you think is the one taking the most risks then? Don't just bash a company and then show no proof of the one you love so much.

Emiscary:
Oh yay, ANOTHER "Look at me I can get pissy about cultural trends!" guy.

Seriously, EA contributes little innovation and risks NOTHING.

Crysis- Super high def shooter.
Spore- Stripped down to a glorified art program.
Skate- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater's most recent bastardized descendent!
Army of Two- A shooter. But with co-op!
Dead Space- Resi Evil in space. Oh, but you're shooting off limbs instead of eyeballs/faces.
Dragon Age- Standard RPG. Don't even pretend it isn't.
Mirror's Edge- Didn't play it, don't care about it, and it was supposedly a commercial/critical/cult failure anyway.
Dantes Inferno- Failure on multiple levels and had the worst and most obnoxious ad campaign of any game in recent history.

For fun, go look up that meme listing studios EA's metaphorically capped in the head.

So what videogame company do you think is the one taking the most risks then? Don't just bash a company and then show no proof of the one you love so much.

Here's the thing. Publishers are needed, despite what you think of them, they actually put out some quality games- even if they're somewhat rehashed from the previous version. There are more shitty indie games out there than there are shitty AAA games, and the poor AAA games typically are better than the poor indie games.

Not to mention without publishing studios, many of the developers of what people call 'quality games' would quickly dissolve. Bioware? Gone. Bethesda? Gone. Obsidian? Gone. Any company with over about 12 people would quickly disappear and for the most part, the entire hobby of gaming would completely disappear. Asking what would happen if all publishers disappeared is like asking what would happen to the comic industry if Marvel and DC disappeared.

Do the publishers need to fix up how they treat their customers? Hell yes, but having even just one of them totally disappear would be a major setback to the industry. For example, look at THQ- they've fucked up and mismanaged, and as a result a chunk of games that could have been good might never get made.

So no, I wouldn't want to see EA go. I'd rather that they clean up their act in how they treat their customers.

EA reminds me of an ancient religion, it will always exists and was once great inspiration to a lot of people. However the only way to truly remove its weighted presence is to just simply ignore and turn your backs on it.

Yep.

In this parallel dimension with no EA, there'd either be an equally irritating publisher, or the current dev teams would be divided up amongst currently existing publishers.

Also, this thread would exist there too, only it would reference one of the other publishers. I wonder if I'm over there right now, typing out a response detailing a hypothetical publisher called EA.

Without EA in particular?

Sure. If nothing else, I'd like to see Bioware free of their influence.

Without any big publishers?

Nah. Games are expensive to make. Someone needs to provide the capital. (And no, Kickstarter isn't up to it.) If all publishers were to spontaneously vanish the developers would just seek out other parties to bankroll their projects and new publishers would emerge from them.

If there was no EA activision would run amok.

That is a terrible parallel universe :P

I remember when they didn't order developers to their deaths with ridiculous timetables and money-making schemes.

Back before they merged with Infogrames.

So yes, yes I can imagine a world without the EA we know today.

While I do have a rather high contempt for EA, some of their games (yes, their new ones, and even one yet-to-be-released one) make me less spiteful of them. They're publishing Overstrike (By Insomniac. Do want. So much want.), so there's that... They published Shank 2 and The Fancy Pants Adventures... Deathspank... L4D2. On the other hand, there's also a certain contempt that even their cool publishing selections bring about... Take Fancy Pants Adventures. I love the guy who made it because of how smooth he makes his controls, how well-polished everything always is, etcetera. Yet when FPA came out, I couldn't help but get the feeling that it was a bit rushed. The same thing happened with his Mirror's Edge 2D game. It was still great, but I mean... blarg...

Generally, I don't quite like them, but on the other hand I don't hate them anywhere near enough to boycott them or anything, especially given many of the games they publish.

Paragon Shepard:
EA are much like cerberus...a necicary evil

"Necessary"? They're cartoonishly incompetent and evil in Mass Effect 1, only slightly less incompetent and evil in Mass Effect 2 (with the sole exception of bringing Shep back from the dead), and in Mass Effect 3 they lose some of their incompetence and gain triple that in evilness.

As bad as publishers can appear, it's not all bad. (Even though I don't approve of EA's tendency to buy out a dev and puppet it around while milking its IPs until they kill it.)

Games, more so than any other medium, take not only years and years to develop (If it's not a yearly iteration without much modification) but the cost to develop games is astronomical in the AAA scene, so we need big publishers to fund those projects.

tippy2k2:
-sneep-

(For fun, here is a list of EVERY EA game created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_games If you can look at that list and tell me that not ONE of their games is a game that you have loved, I will take this all back and join you in your "I Hate EA" campaign).
-sneep-

Found some interesting games in there. Diablo for the PS1, James Pond. Also, the Orange Box for PS3.

But if the games that I previously loved, but now hate count, I would not have succeeded this challenge.

But with my current game opinions, I like none of those games. Do I win a prize?

No, I enjoyed their Harry Potter games up to the Goblet of Fire.

I can imagine a world without EA within the next few years, as the gaming industry is changing quite rapidly & they've made significant losses this year. But if EA was simply stricken from existence then we would be missing a lot of good games from their earlier days.

I don't think all big publishers should jst vanish but I would love to see EA suddenly lose relevance. I know it wold be bad for the industry if they just vanished but ARG! I HATE EA!!!

It's like they make decent IPs and then feel they have to go and ruin them, every single time. Either that or they jst buy out decent studios and destroy their quality before killing them off too.

"I actually visited the world before EA were there. It was a happy place; full of grassy meadows and chocolate rivers, where children played with little gumdrop smiles."

tippy2k2:
(all of these are new IPs either developed by or published by EA within the last five years):

Crysis
Spore
Skate
Army of Two
Dead Space
Dragon Age
Mirror's Edge
Dantes Inferno

So we have

Alright
Shit
Shit
Shit
Shit
Alright
Ambitious but ultimately shit
Shit

HOW COULD I LIVE WITHOUT THOSE GAMES???

EA was great - once, long ago. Now, though, it just needs to die.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

tippy2k2:
snip

So we have

Alright
Shit
Shit
Shit
Shit
Alright
Ambitious but ultimately shit
Shit

HOW COULD I LIVE WITHOUT THOSE GAMES???

That's not the point. I don't care if someone as an individual liked any of those games (the only one I personally thought was great was Dragon Age, with Army of Two and Mirror's Edge being interesting failures to me) but that EA is a big company who is willing to take SOME kind of risk (even then, Dragon Age is probably the least riskiest of these IPs and was the most successful). People can complain all they want that they're crushing the industry with cookie-cutter copies of the same games but their own list of games tells differently.

If you look at this list and tell me that Skate is just Tony Hawk or that Dragon Age is just a standard RPG with NOTHING new to the table (as the OP stated), then you either have never played these games before or nothing is going to please you.

Saromnour:
Found some interesting games in there. Diablo for the PS1, James Pond. Also, the Orange Box for PS3.

But if the games that I previously loved, but now hate count, I would not have succeeded this challenge.

But with my current game opinions, I like none of those games. Do I win a prize?

Nope, the list was for fun and not the basis of my argument (see my response to Smash). If it makes you feel better, I'm surprised that none of the current games EA has created got you going (hell, Bioware's contributions alone would make most people happy) : )

tippy2k2:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

tippy2k2:
snip

So we have

Alright
Shit
Shit
Shit
Shit
Alright
Ambitious but ultimately shit
Shit

HOW COULD I LIVE WITHOUT THOSE GAMES???

That's not the point. I don't care if someone as an individual liked any of those games (the only one I personally thought was great was Dragon Age, with Army of Two and Mirror's Edge being interesting failures to me) but that EA is a big company who is willing to take SOME kind of risk (even then, Dragon Age is probably the least riskiest of these IPs and was the most successful). People can complain all they want that they're crushing the industry with cookie-cutter copies of the same games but their own list of games tells differently.

If you look at this list and tell me that Skate is just Tony Hawk or that Dragon Age is just a standard RPG with NOTHING new to the table (as the OP stated), then you either have never played these games before or nothing is going to please you.

The thing is I could make a list like this for just about every major publisher out there and they would end up looking better than EA in comparison. Your list seems long, but then you realize its only 8 games in a long timespan and list of endless sequels and rip offs.

Hm, I should probably add the addendum " -anymore" to the sentence "I just don't see the need for companies like this..." for clarity's sake.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

The thing is I could make a list like this for just about every major publisher out there and they would end up looking better than EA in comparison. Your list seems long, but then you realize its only 8 games in a long timespan and list of endless sequels and rip offs.

ooh... So tempted to say something about Madden here... about how they bought the NFL license so that they didn't have to worry about that pesky 'competition' aspect of game development anymore, and could just release the same game every year for the next forever without making any significant changes to warrant a sequel...

I think I'll be able to hold myself back though. I'm trying to cut back on my internet arguments.

No EA means DICE has no publisher, which means Mirror's Edge, Crysis (played and liked the first one and Warhead) and Battlefield (the only military FPS I support) don't get made. Of course, that could be remedied by DICE just finding a new publisher (preferably someone like THQ or 2K), so nothing of value is really lost if EA just dies.

Yeah, sure, Steam becomes the PC distribution monopoly again, but it's not really too bad if one considers that Valve made it work for 7 years with little to no competition.

Emiscary:

This is more or less the scene that runs through my head every time the topic of bloated game publishing conglomerates comes up.

And when it does, there's inevitably *somebody* who cries:

"What!? How on Earth would we get on without overstuffed companies trying to stereotype an entire generation of people into a neat little 'demographic' and sell them homogenized products!?"

(My bias is showing, but W.E.)

Point is, I don't see the need for these kind of companies anymore. At all. I could be missing something entirely- but there it is.

image

My feel when

Vault101:
is it me

or are people more negativly biased against EA/Bioware than they are gainst Activision/Blizard..Im not seeing so many Diablo 3 hate threads

We had that a while ago with the MW2 crap, most were against Activision. Most people i believed liked EA then, but this Activision no longer does anything we've turned attention to EA. Still, Bobby Kotick is still hated here.

As for EA, we could do without them, but gaming today as we know it might be a whole lot different, either better or worse depending on how you see it.

But we need EA. They set the standard of douche bag business practices. How would we know what was greedy, self destructive, and moronic without EA to show us!

There's never a need for big companies, but they WILL happen. Companies grow when they offer desirable products and practice profitable business strategy. Pick on EA all you want, but at the end of the day, they're still raking in millions, and at least some sliver of that money will come from your pockets.

The issue isn't with the existence of big publishers. The problem is with how scared they are to try anything new and how little attention they pay to customer feedback that isn't filtered through biased surveys.

Also, to anyone who thinks that's what a world without lawyers would be like: Have fun defending yourself in court if you're ever falsely accused of murder or some other horrendous crime.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked