Hattingston:
I think IGN is going to see their numbers start dropping pretty soon. With their lack of acknowledgement of the fiasco that was the ME 3 ending, lack of comment on Diablo 3 problems, and articles like this cropping up, their viewership will (hopefully) realize that this site doesn't voice opinions they value and leave.

I'm pretty sure that if people put up with all the other bullshit IGN pulls, they won't be losing many people due to this.

the funny thing about ea is that they act like dicks and they know they act like dicks but are supprised when they are treated like dicks and no one wants to hang out with them.

who would have known that punishing your customers would end up in losing value on the stock market and a long journey into bankruptcy.

ea is a genius

I can't tell if this is funny or sad. Maybe a little of both.

I avoided this article since I knew it was going to be bull shit, plus I didn't want to give IGN the ad revenue for what was clearly nerdbaiting, but God damn you IGN.

Firstly, when will people realise that publishers do not make games. Publishers fund, publicise and distribute games. They do not create them. The only times when a publisher has any input to the actual creation of a game is when they want to meddle with it's design in a way that can make them more money. See Dead Space 2 multiplayer. But the main thing which I feel need re-iterating (for IGN et al., not The Escapist) is that publishers do not deserve credit for the creation of a game! EA owns some great studios who make great games, because they have loads of money. EA knows this and exploits this.

And yeah, EA is a corporation. Big woop. We all know that. That's not what pisses people off. It's how they run their corporation. They do it by using underhanded tactics to squeeze as much money out of the consumer as possible. Online passes, day 1 DLC, over priced DLC, paying for servers etc. These things are not necessary to be successful. Obviously a corporation wants to be as successful as they possibly can, so they won't be content in only being moderately successful if they're trying to be the best, but you don't have to be unethical about it. Valve and Steam for example. Valve are extremely successful and they have done it in a way that is focused around pleasing the customer and not being a dick, and it works ridiculously well, even though Valve are the biggest trolls in the industry.

And the past is irrelevant. So what if the company started trying to makes games that make people cry? It's been a very long time since they gave a shit about that. Now they just want your money. That version of EA is long gone. I'm not going to give a free pass to all the shit they try to pull now because they started out with good intentions. And at the risk of breaking Godwin's law, there are plenty of examples I could give of people who started with good intentions but ended up being completely evil pricks. Just because they started out trying to do the right thing doesn't mean that they are somehow undeserving of scorn for their later actions.

Although I think I should point out something. This article will probably perpetuate the idea that publishers (especially EA) bribe gaming news sites (especially IGN) in to saying nice things about them and their games. This isn't true. There's no evidence for this other than the fact that IGN and others give inflated scores (or perceived inflated scores) to certain games. But what's actually happening isn't bribery, it's worse. They pretty much blackmail them. And this is no secret. There's plenty of cases of publishers bullying gaming sites in to being nice or else they will withdraw their support, thus losing them ad revenue. Take a look at the firing of Jeff Gerstmann for his Kane and Lynch review at GameSpot. The editors buckled under pressure from Square Enix because Jeff dared to call it like it is.

.No.:

I'm pretty sure that if people put up with all the other bullshit IGN pulls, they won't be losing many people due to this.

I'm inclined to disagree. Prior, they didn't (or at least I didn't notice) when they outright denied large vocal elements of the gaming community and trumpeted the publishers or developers when the community was so obviously in the right. I see it as the difference of someone saying "Hey, this is pretty cool" and "NO. SHUT UP. THIS IS F*CKING AWESOME. STOP NOT LIKING IT."

Any company that alienates its fanbase with every move it makes, claiming to do so for them, is akin to a company that spits in your eye and tells you you asked for it. The nitty gritty business side? Yeah, it's kinda awful. But EA is an insulting company. Everything it does in an insult to those who like its products, and to videogames in general. People feel insulted by EA's very presence.

Dryk:

rob_simple:
I think the 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' ideal stills holds up in the above scenario because, as I've pointed out several times, all of the games mentioned in the example are sequels; if you like the series then you already have a previous installment in your collection.

That argument never holds up with media, because by its nature you have to buy it before you know if you'll like it. Which along with a few other factors makes it damn-near worthless as a control system.

...Or you could read reviews, watch gameplay footage on Youtube, see what the forums are saying (ignoring all the RAEG comments,) rent it, play it at a friend's house, download the demo that is usually available after a few weeks. So there are in fact numerous ways to know if you'll like something before you buy it, and even then, if you're still not sure wait til it's in a sale so there's less scope for loss on your part.

Games are probably the one medium where 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' holds up more than anything else, the only people who could be affected the way you describe is the day one purchasers, and that's their own fault for lacking patience.

xPixelatedx:

rob_simple:

It's like when people rage over a company changing the format of a game like Dead Space 3 (without even having played it): if you don't like the new direction the developer is taking, then you still have two perfectly good games that you clearly already like to play; let the rest of us who aren't so close-minded try something new and also, if it really is the wrong direction, let the sales dictate that.

It's really easy to say, "Hey everyone, lets all hold hands and forget about our worries; to each their own." One could technically use this argument against almost any grievance others might have, but sadly life isn't that easy. You can say 'let us enjoy this new thing while you cling to your old' but you completely ignore the fact that this is the death of the series. That is not an opinion, but the reality you have to accept. This "New Direction" has increased production costs so much, they said if the game doesn't sell 5 million, they will kill the franchise because it is no longer profitable. In case you don't know about the average game sales, it's basically guaranteed not to sell that much, (the second game didn't even sell half that much) hence Dead Space is now no-more, thanks to EA's business practices. They created a problem, asked us to bail them out, all because they made changes to a franchise, changes that no one asked them to make.

I love the fact that you equate the facts of life to video games. In the grand scheme of things video games are fun, sure, but they are not important. And you can't say for absolutely certain that the game will under perform, so it is in fact an opinion --abeit a likely one-- but it is in no way reality.

And I love this weird thing you and other people seem to have that once a franchise has been shelved it can never be brought back. We're living in a time when small indie projects are becoming a lot more popular and things like DLC make it possible for big developers to roll out smaller versions of potential new projects to test the water, and you think that when a franchise underperforms once it is gone forever? You're either deluded or trying to exaggerate to give your weak argument some ground.

Can't read the article as it's a massive image.

Thanks OP, stellar job! (That's sarcasm, by the way)

wow, just the first sentence of that "article" and you can tell it's not anything worth reading, it's just a corporate handjob. fuck ign, fuck ea, and fuck that article.

GoaThief:
Can't read the article as it's a massive image.

Thanks OP, stellar job! (That's sarcasm, by the way)

sorry for the double post, but you're missing the point in the douchiest of ways. it's been linked as a giant image so as not to contribute to their page hits. its an elegant solution, and you shit all over it because you cant open an image.

After having to wait 35mins just to play Battlefield 3 because the log in centre would not accept my details, and to then be told I had to log into the site for reasons not disclosed. This is just too much fiddle farting around to just play a game. I strive to not purchase any EA games after this annoyance. I dont play console games to have to sign in to a computer. Id play PC if i wanted that.

I really don't care what my total lifespan of gaming information with EA is.

Ubisofts Uplay was ok though. I still log in from time to time to get wallpapers (massive AC fan) but otherwise I think these servies are next to pointless. There are too many games that require accounts and log ins and frankly, its enough to warrant me putting down the controller if more take to this process.

GoaThief:
Can't read the article as it's a massive image.

Thanks OP, stellar job! (That's sarcasm, by the way)

Sorry about that all you had to was ask nicely (edits post) there we go now are you happy

Isnt it funny how IGN are trying to defend EA when EA bribes IGN to give their game better reviews

Dexter111:
snip

In the end, I'm happy that EA seems to be going down the crapper and their share prices are ever so often reaching new all-time lows:PHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYWJsb2FkLmRlL2ltZy8xMzM5Njc1MDk0OTQ1aTdmZDcuanBnIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==

snip

If they wanted to "better themselves" and be more attractive to consumers and get some good PR for once, they could always trim down all the fat to keep development costs lower and maybe save some money from those $100 million marketing campaigns to give them on to their customers.
They somewhat tried some of that in ~2007-08 by introducing a lot of new IP and trying to cut down on the gouging, but rather soon turned around to more of it.

Whenever they are somewhat getting into monetary trouble they aren't looking for a fault in their business models but with the customer, surely by charging more, gouging with microtransactions and offer more cut out DLC to buy at Launch, as well as producing ever more sequels and shortening the development cycle to a year or two tops they're going to fix that right up.

Yeah, I find it dumbfounding that EA's shares were awesome-high in 2007-08, around the time I like them when they were releasing new IPs, inexpensive content-filled infrequent expansion packs and a finite number of respectable sequels; and drops continually when they contracted sequel-itis and started gouging its consumers banks accounts during a global depression.

Bvenged:

Yeah, I find it dumbfounding that EA's shares were awesome-high in 2007-08, around the time I like them when they were releasing new IPs and expansion packs and proper sequels; and drops continually when they contracted sequel-itis and started gouging its consumers banks accounts during a global depression.

Haha that's exactly the thing with EA. It's not that (for instance) Valve is inherently better re: goals (make an obscene amount of money) and methods (digital distribution w/ included DRM), it's that they choose not to actively antagonize customers and release obviously terrible products. EA doesn't just suck at making games - they suck as a business.

Kahunaburger:

Bvenged:

Yeah, I find it dumbfounding that EA's shares were awesome-high in 2007-08, around the time I like them when they were releasing new IPs and expansion packs and proper sequels; and drops continually when they contracted sequel-itis and started gouging its consumers banks accounts during a global depression.

Haha that's exactly the thing with EA. It's not that (for instance) Valve is inherently better re: goals (make an obscene amount of money) and methods (digital distribution w/ included DRM), it's that they choose not to actively antagonize customers and release obviously terrible products. EA doesn't just suck at making games - they suck as a business.

you would think that "Hey, lets not antagonize our customers!" would be a fairly straight forward concept... But for EA it apparently is not..

I like EA, but that is a very poor article.

FelixG:
you would think that "Hey, lets not antagonize our customers!" would be a fairly straight forward concept... But for EA it apparently is not..

Because it's being run by shareholders and investors who know fuck-all about videogames and it's audience. That's not the case with companies like Valve and CDProjekt. They're ran by people who are actually part of the target audience for their product, or at least are passionate about the medium of videogames.

As I've said before, I have no doubt that many people at EA are just as passionate about videogames. The problem is that they're not on top.

Because they are all about money and controversy and they don't give a fuck about actual quality of games. Which is ironically the same reason why IGN probably loves EA!

Sorry EA i just cannot forgive you for gobbling up awesome dev studios like Westwood.

Just wondering how long till bioware are kicked out on there arse.

You know what if EA went bankrupt and goes under, it's gonna be pretty cathartic when it does happen and we laugh and celebrate at its demise.

Although I will feel sorry for the people that will lose their jobs in the process if this ever happens.

Of course IGN asked why people hate EA, I mean it's not like they're in the right business to know that kind of thing already.

Also, calling the people who hate EA a tiny minority...Well that's just a laughable attempt at an EA defence.

Why I personally hate EA?

Because it's the omen of the industry becoming McVideogames that's why...with everything bad associated to the term.

I just read about damage control marketing and professional trolling so I take the article with a grain of salt.

Crono1973:
I hate when people misuse the spoiler tag.

Hint: Don't use the spoiler tag to hide an article that is the main point of your damn thread. If it's the main point of your thread, why hide it?

Also, some people use it to hide entire quoted posts or even YouTube videos that don't contain spoilers.

As for the article, I hate when people act like anything goes because a business is supposed to make money. That's where I stopped reading the "spoiler".

You got it mate there we go fixed because unlike EA I listen to people and their issues and try to fix them

I don't hate EA, but I wouldn't say I like them either. They haven't really produced anything that's got my interest in the last... a long time. I think maybe Nightfire on Gamecube was the last time I got into an EA game... That said, from what I hear they're doing some pretty dodgy stuff with their online passes, utterly shitty Origin pricing and all that.

I'm just going to say a few names:

Bullfrog
Pandemic
Westwood
......
Bioware

That is all.

Look, the "they're a corporation" thing doesn't fly - that's not an excuse for treating the people who make you your money like they're your own private cash point. People don't like EA becasue they try to bleed them dry and doing everything in the name of money, when instead they should be doing it in the name of customer satisfaction. Get that and the money follows, as does a more solid fanbase and tolerance for genuine screw-ups.

Oh, hi Valve.

Again: "We're a business to make money," does not equate to a free Be a Dick pass.

To quote Richard Garriott, the two games he made that weren't as good as they could have been, was when he listened to other people telling him how to do his job.

At its core, that's the problem with the big publishers.

I stopped paying attention around the time they started citing metacritic scores in EA's defense.

Y'know what metacritic is? A means for developers to openly ignore what their fans think by superimposing that:

"User scores: generally negative."

Right beside this:

"Critic scores: OH MY GOD CAN I SUCK YOUR DICK!? I'LL SUCK YOUR DICK FOR A SANDWICH! I LOVE YOU EA!!!"

(Hint: if user scores almost never align with critic scores, the critics opinion's are useless.)

Also, there's something fundamentally stupid about asking the object of everyone's ire why they're hated. I seriously doubt they have a clear view on things.

Chinese Correspondent: So Mr. President, why does the west fear and hate us?
Hu Jintao: Well naturally they're jealous of our social progress. Next question.

Oh, and one last thing. Colin Campbell? Opening your article like this:

"Did I say hate? I meant dislike. Well, dislike's kind of a strong word. Disagree with, maybe? Well, there's only a few of them. It doesn't really matter. But why are they so irrelevant and wrong?"

Makes you the worst kind of journalist there is. You deserve to wear a badge that reads:

"Fit only to serve fried food. Please kick me."