EA is not evil.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Hopefully, the title drew some attention. Now please, read my points before you tell me how much in denial I am about how they act.

First point: EA, as a corporation, needs to make money. Why? They are a publicly owned company, with shareholders. If they start losing a lot of money, shareholders will abandon the company, resulting in layoffs.

What does this mean, exactly? Well, they can't take very many risks in games they make. It's easy to tell them to make unique games like Double Fine does, but look at it from a monetary standpoint. What would make the most sense, using a tried-and-true formula until it doesn't work before changing it up, or changing things up every time and risk losing money? Let's be honest, Double Fine games, despite their critical success, tend to not make much in sales. And while for a smaller company like Double Fine, they can generally take the blow and keep going (unless it happens for several games in a row, or was a hugely expensive flop), when your company relies on shareholders, one flop could equal 1,000 shareholders jumping ship, which would be bad for employees.

Second point: Closing down studios.

I love this one. Apparently, EA is a vampire that sucks great studios dry, and casts their corpses aside in search for new blood. This ignores a few things. First, how can EA buy a studio that doesn't want the help? They can't. Why would a studio be willing to be bought out if they were successful on their own? They wouldn't. Let me take you through a journey back in time, to ye olde ages, when floppy disks were actually still a thing. EA is blamed for the demises of several companies. Let's see how they were doing before EA bought them.

Bullfrog: Last game before EA bought them was "Tube", a game without even a Wikipedia page. I could find very little mention of it, other than the game existing as abandonware. Generally, not a sign of a successful game.

Westwood Studios: While the last game before they were bought was the 1997 "Blade Runner" game, which was successful, before it was (possibly) the PC port of "Resident Evil", which they didn't get credited for if they did, and a PC version of Monopoly. Sounds like the awesome C&C company, doesn't it?

Maxis: They were successful at first, but as soon as they experimented outside of the sim genre, they produced flop ("The Crystal Skull", not to be confused with the recent Indiana Jones film) after flop ("Simcopter"). The breaking point was the acquisition of Cinematronics in order to make a game called "Crucible". When that flopped, and the studio felt a lack of direction, they started looking at acquisition offers.

Pandemic Studios: Another favorite of the "EA sucks" crowd. Here's the thing. In the year before they were acquired, they made two games, "Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers" and "Destroy All Humans 2", the latter of which was somewhat successful, and the first of which was received as an average game by critics. And true, the first game they made after EA bought them was was "Mercenaries 2", which was a mess. But their last two games were original games, and one of those was in a new universe. So while EA did shut them down, and they had a lot of success before EA, they were going downhill before EA bought them.

I could discuss other points, but this is already getting pretty long, so I'll leave it at the two main ones for now. In short, EA is in it for the money, but so is every corporation. Saying EA is evil is like saying McDonald's is evil, but Burger King is all right. As for "ruining" companies, if you take off the rose-tinted goggles and use a combination of research and common sense, you will realize that, until EA bought them, those companies were in trouble without any help from EA.

If you are still reading this, thank you. I'll thank you even more for not trying to get me banned for having a minority opinion.

Another person who doesn't hate EA? I thought I was alone!!!...or is this a trick? You're just trying to draw me out for the ambush!

...alright, I'll play nicely.

I like EA. I don't agree with everything that they do but they've released more original IP's than most other companies and seems to be one of the few big companies that is actually willing to try something new either through development or publishing (see Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, Army of Two, Bulletstorm, etc). While their PR department could certainly use a bit more sense (ideally just stop talking; they seem to love inserting foot into mouth), the company itself isn't the giant monster that rapes and pillages with one hand while flipping customers the bird with the other; they're a business.

I don't mind that they've created Project Ten Dollar to try to re-coup costs. I don't mind that they buy out companies (they've never done a hostile take-over; these companies are choosing to be bought out). I don't mind that they have chosen to go up against Valve with Origin. I completely reject the argument that they just release the same sports games every year (seriously, anyone using that argument is instantly branded as a moron by me).

That does not mean I support everything mind you (I hate the sports exclusivity deal and the "multi-player in everything!!!" philosophy) but all the big check-marks people put against the company I think are either invalid or completely overblown.

EDIT: Took out Darksiders after it was pointed out that it wasn't an EA title. Not sure why I thought that but Dead Space has now replaced it.

You make good points, but I still dislike the company. Mainly because the constant screwing over of companies, shady practices, Origin, and Online Passes.

By the way, this thread might get a little lengthy...

Captcha: Who makes the total lean product line?
options:
A1 supplements
GNC
The vitamin shoppe
Super Supplements
Vitamin World

How the fuck would I know?

Okay, the way captchas are treating users indicates that I'm supposed to know who has exactly what products if I am to be believed as a human. Something is a bit wrong with that.

Everytime you say EA is not evil , a baby kitten dies .

OT : There are several reasons to hate EA , most i assume you have heard hence making this thread . I won't try to convince you since you probably already seen every argument there is to be had , and i won't flame you because you have a different opinion that mine . That being said , in my mind i don't think EA has always been evil . But i do this , as things are now , if EA disappeared it would be a good thing for gaming as a whole. My one true hope is that one day , EA will crash and burn and serve as the prime example of how NOT to do things , thus in it's own way helping the medium move foward in a way that consumers and publishers can coexist without any harsh feeling .

i love the fact that this thread is above the which ultima is your favorite thread, i really do.

speaking of which you seem to ignore the ultima series, you know how they pushed out ultima 8, and the apparent travesty that was ultima 9? i think most people here are far more pissed about that.

or my personal gripe with them, how they utterly fucked the medal of honor series.

thebobmaster:
Hopefully, the title drew some attention. Now please, read my points before you tell me how much in denial I am about how they act.

First point: EA, as a corporation, needs to make money. Why? They are a publicly owned company, with shareholders. If they start losing a lot of money, shareholders will abandon the company, resulting in layovers.

I think you mean layoffs.

What does this mean, exactly? Well, they can't take very many risks in games they make.

Why would you start off with the weakest possible argument anyway, the one that most makes you look like a fanboy sucking EA's cock?

They are too risk-averse. Business is risk.

Second point: Closing down studios.

I love this one. Apparently, EA is a vampire that sucks great studios dry, and casts their corpses aside in search for new blood.

They totally are, yo. RIP Bullfrog. RIP Westwood. RIP BioWare.

This ignores a few things. First, how can EA buy a studio that doesn't want the help?

You assume a company can't be bought out, even if it doesn't actually want to be. This is actually false.

Why would a studio be willing to be bought out if they were successful on their own? They wouldn't.

More assumptions, more falseness.

Let me take you through a journey back in time, to ye olde ages, when floppy disks were actually still a thing. EA is blamed for the demises of several companies. Let's see how they were doing before EA bought them.

Bullfrog: Last game before EA bought them was "Tube", a game without even a Wikipedia page. I could find very little mention of it, other than the game existing as abandonware. Generally, not a sign of a successful game.

Judging a studio by the game that just happened to be the very last one published? Not a very strong start.

Not to mention also published that same year: the American Revolt expansion pack for Syndicate, and Theme Park. Both well-received. Peter Molyneux being on EA's board probably had some influence in the acquisition. :p

Westwood Studios: While the last game before they were bought was the 1997 "Blade Runner" game, which was successful, before it was (possibly) the PC port of "Resident Evil", which they didn't get credited for if they did, and a PC version of Monopoly. Sounds like the awesome C&C company, doesn't it?

And then you keep doing it...

Maxis: They were successful at first, but as soon as they experimented outside of the sim genre, they produced flop ("The Crystal Skull", not to be confused with the recent Indiana Jones film) after flop ("Simcopter"). The breaking point was the acquisition of Cinematronics in order to make a game called "Crucible". When that flopped, and the studio felt a lack of direction, they started looking at acquisition offers.

Not that they've ever done anything good with Maxis IPs... everything after SC2000 sucked.

Pandemic Studios: Another favorite of the "EA sucks" crowd. Here's the thing. In the year before they were acquired, they made two games, "Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers" and "Destroy All Humans 2", the latter of which was somewhat successful, and the first of which was received as an average game by critics. And true, the first game they made after EA bought them was was "Mercenaries 2", which was a mess. But their last two games were original games, and one of those was in a new universe. So while EA did shut them down, and they had a lot of success before EA, they were going downhill before EA bought them.

And EA completely, utterly, totally screwed them over in order to justify shutting them down.

I could discuss other points, but this is already getting pretty long, so I'll leave it at the two main ones for now.

And they're not very convincing, either. Acquisition by EA has been shown to be a foreboding sign that games published under the acquired's name will decline in quality.

tippy2k2:
Another person who doesn't hate EA? I thought I was alone!!!...or is this a trick? You're just trying to draw me out for the ambush!

...alright, I'll play nicely.

I like EA. I don't agree with everything that they do but they've released more original IP's than most other companies and seems to be one of the few big companies that is actually willing to try something new (see Darksiders, Mirrors Edge, Army of Two, etc). While their PR department could certainly use a bit more sense (ideally just stop talking; they seem to love inserting foot into mouth), the company itself isn't the giant monster that rapes and pillages with one hand while flipping customers the bird with the other; they're a business.

I don't mind that they've created Project Ten Dollar to try to re-coup costs. I don't mind that they buy out companies (they've never done a hostile take-over; these companies are choosing to be bought out). I don't mind that they have chosen to go up against Valve with Origin. I completely reject the argument that they just release the same sports games every year (seriously, anyone using that argument is instantly branded as a moron by me).

That does not mean I support everything mind you (I hate the sports exclusivity deal and the "multi-player in everything!!!" philosophy) but all the big check-marks people put against the company I think are either invalid or completely overblown.

Umm Darksiders is published by THQ not EA. Sure I'll give them credit for letting DICE create Mirror's Edge, one of my most beloved games of all time. But I won't forgive them for ignoring the IP for 5 years and relegating DICE to constantly pump Battlefield sequels.

Packie_J:
Umm Darksiders is published by THQ not EA. Sure I'll give them credit for letting DICE create Mirror's Edge, one of my most beloved games of all time. But I won't forgive them for ignoring the IP for 5 years and relegating DICE to constantly pump Battlefield sequels.

Really? I swear Darksiders was published by EA...TO THE WIKIPEDIA!!!

...well played. I shall fix this injustice in my post at once, thank you for the heads-up

evilneko:
snip

I'm not trying to be rude with the snip. It's just saves others from reading through a long quote if they want to see my response.

First off, EA is not too risk-averse. They do take risks. They took one with Mirror's Edge, they took one with the Ghostbusters game, they took one with Brutal Legend, and they took one with Saboteur. Now, how many of those risks actually paid off? Well, Mirror's Edge got decent reviews, but sold below expectations (they were projecting 3 million sales, but only got two million). Ghostbusters was, again, well received, and sold a bit better, having, in three years, sold just over 3 million copies. Brutal Legend was reviewed well, but as of February 2011, had only sold 1.4 million copies. Saboteur was received with average reviews, but has yet to even break the million sales mark.

As for the idea that games produced after EA acquires them being of lower quality, let me point out a few things.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 94

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

There's my Bioware example. Oh, and despite the hate-on for ME3, it has a Metacritic score of 93. Worst of the series, true, but many developers would be ecstatic over breaking 90.

As for Westwood, first game they made after EA bought them was Tiberian Sun, which became the fastest selling EA game to date. The second? Red Alert 2.

Oh, and System Shock 2? The developers are on record as saying it never would have happened without EA. See, Looking Glass approached Irrational Studios, planning to make a game similar to "System Shock", which the developers were fans of. While searching for a publisher, EA said that they'd publish the game, but under the condition that it be made a full sequel, which EA had the rights to. They accepted, and the rest is history.

thebobmaster:
Westwood Studios: While the last game before they were bought was the 1997 "Blade Runner" game, which was successful

That game is truly the only movie-spinoff in history that was ever good. In fact, it was amazing. In fact, it cured cancer.

By the way, your entire post shows your (young) age. Your knowledge of the subject is based on hearsay and hand-me-downs. As such, I see no discussion value here.

The point is, everything EA touches either dies or turns into grey paste.

Metalhandkerchief:

thebobmaster:
Westwood Studios: While the last game before they were bought was the 1997 "Blade Runner" game, which was successful

That game is truly the only movie-spinoff in history that was ever good. In fact, it was amazing. In fact, it cured cancer.

By the way, your entire post shows your (young) age. Your knowledge of the subject is based on hearsay and hand-me-downs. As such, I see no discussion value here.

The point is, everything EA touches either dies or turns into grey paste.

How do you know that? Have you played every EA game ever made? Because otherwise, your knowledge on the subject is based on hearsay and hand-me-downs.

OK, that's a bit rude, I'll admit. But I don't see how being fairly young and looking at it from an objective standpoint makes me any less knowledgeable than the person shouting that EA has been killing games for the last ten years, despite the fact that gaming is still doing fine.

Besides, I've almost literally grown up gaming. I started at the age of 4. I think I might know a few things.

As for relying on hearsay and hand-me-downs...how else am I supposed to look at sales and critical reception?

thebobmaster:
First point: EA, as a corporation, needs to make money. Why? They are a publicly owned company, with shareholders. If they start losing a lot of money, shareholders will abandon the company, resulting in layovers.

But that doesn't make EA games and practices better to me as a gamer, does it?

I understand they need to make money. However, that does not mean consumers like me need to put up with their shoddy business practices.

What, you want me to tolerate DRM, online passes and day one DLC just because they need to make money?

Why do people never apply this logic to sweatshops? Oh, sure, the working conditions are terrible and the pay is just as bad, but the guy who owns it needs to make money, right? Just like the companies that buy sweatshop wares.

Now theres a big difference between day one DLC and taking advantage of poverty stricken children, but the argument is the same. Stupid in both cases.

EDIT: Its also worth mentioning EA are steadily dropping from a financial point of view, so whatever their trying isn't working. Just saying.

thebobmaster:

Second point: Closing down studios.

I love this one. Apparently, EA is a vampire that sucks great studios dry, and casts their corpses aside in search for new blood. This ignores a few things. First, how can EA buy a studio that doesn't want the help? They can't.

Ok, first thing: There is another reason companies merge: because they realise they will be stronger if they combine their assets. Look at Activision Blizzard, the result of a merger between two successful companies and five years later they're both doing fantastic. Some of EA's buyouts didn't last two years!
This is an important point, because some of the companies merged into EA did so to take advantage of working within a larger company, and found themselves suffocated.

So, let's take an adventure into the seedy underworld of EA's corporate buyouts!

I'm using hidden text to centre this gif!image

We'll start with exhibit A, otherwise known as Origin Systems: Founded by now well-respected game designer Richard Gariott. one of the first EA buyouts, and one of the worst. You are right in saying that they did end up in financial difficulty, and had to either sell to EA or go bankrupt, but what you may not know is that EA put them there. With frivolous lawsuits and corporate bullying they wore them down until they were in debt, and had to settle. Then EA bought them out, and the founder of EA when asked about the tactics they used to aquire it said "This is just business. This is the way we're going to win."

Let's move on to exhibit B, Westwood Studios.

Westwood had 7% of the videogame market share at the time they were bought out, EA had 11%. They were not a floundering company, they were highly successful and doing very very well. In fact they were halfway through the next C&C game. The reason for the buyout lies in money. $122.5 million in cash to be exact, which was what the owners of Westwood were paid by EA for their company. It was a quick money grab, and many of Westwood's employees registered their personal feelings about being betrayed by the owners, and most of them quit their jobs in protest.
What happened to the "awesome C&C" game they were in the middle of developing after EA bought them?

Electronic Arts, who had acquired Westwood Studios in 1998 and published Tiberian Sun, and had no direct part in its development, pushed for Tiberian Sun's release ahead of schedule, resulting in a number of engine and gameplay features being omitted from the game, some of which were later included in Firestorm expansion pack.

Rushed deadlines and putting features meant for the main game in an expensive extra content pack? Start as you mean to go on, I suppose.

And now for Exhibit C, I refer, Your Honour, to the joint acquisition of Bioware/Pandemic, and this juicy tale of corruption runs right the way to the top of the house!

Pandemic were partnered with Bioware, due to them being owned by the same private equity fund (V.G Holdings). By the way, this is another perfect example of two companies merging not because one is on deaths door, but because they realise they can do better together, and it worked really well! Until...

A certain man by the name of John Riccitiello became CEO of EA. He had a very impressive C.V., including working in Haagen Dazs, several previous upper management positions in EA, and co-founding a company called Elevation Partners.

Hold on to your ass, because things are about to get corporate.

Elevation Partners was a large Investment firm, meaning it held a lot of private businesses. Among these businesses was a certain "V.G Holdings". Yes, the same V.G. Holdings that ran Bioware/Pandemic. One of the first acts John made when he became CEO of EA was to buy VG Holdings for $620 million. This gave EA two top quality companies that were just exploding onto the videogame scene.
However, John still held a huge personal interest in Elevation Partners, and so he personally pocketed a $5 million personal bonus by Elevation Partners through his official role there for the merger.

What happened after EA had bought the two companies? Bioware did well... for a while. Now the team that made fantastic singleplayer RPGs are stuck perpetually maintaining a failing MMO loosely based on one of their most successful IPs. Pandemic are... dead. Because EA didn't really have a plan for them.
They lasted one year and a month. How does a company get canned so quickly, especially one that creates such a long term product as a videogame? The Duke Nukem Forever developers lasted ten times as long and they weren't even doing any work!
It's because EA never had a plan for Pandemic, they never had any games reserved for them to make, and they didn't bother to use their talents or name. They didn't factor into EA's business plan, and were canned at the first excuse.
The reason for the merger was John Riccitiello's 5 million dollar handshake, and you know what? For that amount of money you can't really blame him.

I don't think that EA are evil - they're just incompetent. The people at the top of the company are not invested in the computer game industry, although to be fair, few of the presidents of the top gaming companies are. I reckon it would be remarkably easy to steer EA down the right path, but you'd have to chop off a lot of the top corporate structure before you could do that. John Riccitiello would be first to go, having about as much investment into the gaming industry as I would into the fashion industry.

Why would you make excuses for acting like a blood-sucking vampire and then say they are not doing it? Is it possible you don't really believe this any more than I do? Pick a position and stick with it, senator.

thebobmaster:
As for the idea that games produced after EA acquires them being of lower quality, let me point out a few things.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 94

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

That may not be a great example considering how bad Mass Effect 2 was compared to the first. There was a very jarring change in direction, and not a good one. For the others, the decline in quality doesn't always occur IMMEDIATELY IN THE VERY NEXT TITLE, especially when it is already in production like Dragon Age. But it does always happen. EA is the one who has the power to put these companies and IPs to good use, and sometimes they do. But there is a clear pattern of decline and vampirism over time.

You listed four examples to make your case and singled out two as the exceptions that prove the rule. Call me unconvinced.

"They need to make money" isn't an excuse for anything because I don't give a fuck if EA makes money. That's their problem, not mine. And do you really think their practices are actually working out for the shareholders? Have you checked the share price lately? The only ones making off like bandits are the company officials. So go ahead, say it's OK for EA to give us a shit deal for shit games so Riccitiello can buy his kids' baby-sitter a second yacht.

They could take risks. But taking a risk isn't enough. I mean it's commendable, but that's only the half of it. You have to take a risk and not fuck it up.

Finally, you have addressed only one of the zillions of awful things EA does that people fucking hate.

Just out of curiosity, by what devises do you expect me to try to get you banned?

Hero in a half shell:
The reason for the merger was John Riccitiello's 5 million dollar handshake, and you know what? For that amount of money you can't really blame him.

You'd be surprised.

It's so frustrating that CEOs are plundering the industry like this and the media acts like I'm the one who is unreasonable. The days of "keeping them honest" are long gone, if they ever existed. I remember a time when sticking to your principles took at least a little bit of will-power, but for the past few years I've rarely been tempted by the shit games the big publishers keep churning out. No one bring up Arkham City, I'm pretending it didn't happen for my purposes here.

I was unaware that stating that EA is neither pure good or pure evil was being a senator. Huh.

As for my examples, they weren't intended to be all inclusive, just countering the examples everyone brings up, which are Maxis, Pandemic, Bioware, Bullfrog, and Westwood. Of those five examples, four had already started to decline before EA got involved, and one has not even started declining, either critically or commercially. You can say that Mass Effect 3 sucked and ruined the franchise. You are entitled to your opinion. But by critic scores and sales, it was still a success.

And you're right, EA making money isn't your problem. But then, no gaming company making money is your problem. As for the "shit games", let's just agree to disagree there. I won't be able to convince you that EA games are, while not original, still very solid games, and you won't be able to convince me that they are pure shit that only sells because people are stupid.

I agree with you on the risk taking part, and I'm not totally defending EA trying to play it too safe, because they should take more risks. My only point is to show why they, as a company, are concerned about that.

I am aware I didn't address every single problem people have with EA, and I actually said I realized that in the first post. I felt that the post was too long as it was. Give me a point, and I'll do my best to counteract it. Other than day one/on disk DLC. That is something I do admit EA is at fault for, and I cannot defend that business practice. Although they are far from the only company to do it, but "they are doing it too" is not a valid defense.

Finally, I don't really expect anyone to be able to ban me. That was just a joke put at the end of a ridiculously long post. I should have stated it was a joke, though.

Metalhandkerchief:

thebobmaster:
Westwood Studios: While the last game before they were bought was the 1997 "Blade Runner" game, which was successful

That game is truly the only movie-spinoff in history that was ever good. In fact, it was amazing. In fact, it cured cancer.

By the way, your entire post shows your (young) age. Your knowledge of the subject is based on hearsay and hand-me-downs. As such, I see no discussion value here.

The point is, everything EA touches either dies or turns into grey paste.

Toy Story 2, Tarzan, and 007: The World is not Enough. These were all fantastic games. I hear a lot of hype over the Spider-Man 2 adaptation, but I've never played it.

EA isn't evil. EA is Chaotic Evil.

Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing. EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

Sometimes I think 'Maybe I'm being unfair on them' and then

'We aren't going to make single players games any more' *smug face like they think they are the coolest*

image

Yopaz:
Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing. EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

Curse you. You made the point I was trying to make, but in a much more concise, non-meandering manner.

But yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. EA isn't great, but all the people saying that EA needs to die for the greater good (the greater good), needs to calm down and look at it from a business standpoint.

Moonlight Butterfly:
'We aren't going to make single players games any more' *smug face like they think they are the coolest*

To be fair, they never said that. They did say that all their games have (and will have) an some online service. This is a very far fetch from "no singleplayer" and I am not quite sure how that misconception came to be in the first place. The original quote could be somewhat misleading but very little reading comprehension is needed to notice that single player is still alive. Also, "online service" does not even mean bolted on multiplayer as I've seen other people suggest. Here, however, the original quote even makes it clear - it can be any sort of thing that requires online connection - leaderboards, DLC, ME2's Ceberus Network, social networking integration - these all count as online services.

Now, I don't really like it but to say "no singleplayer" is just false.

thebobmaster:

Yopaz:
Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing. EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

Curse you. You made the point I was trying to make, but in a much more concise, non-meandering manner.

But yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. EA isn't great, but all the people saying that EA needs to die for the greater good (the greater good), needs to calm down and look at it from a business standpoint.

Don't worry about it. I cheated. I have had this post in my mind for a long time, you just gave me the opportunity to post it.

However the reason for having this in my mind is Obsidian and their Kickstarter project (and all other game Kickstarters we've had recently). The community will complain about publishers being afraid to take a risk and wishing that developers could break free from their clutches. Then Double Fine wants to create a game through crowd funding and a lot of people will complain about how they will have to spend money on a game they can't be sure will be good. There are those who embrace it and are willing to take the risk. However when so many are afraid to give 20 dollars to help fund a game what position do they have to judge EA for not helping a developer out with a few millions on a game they can't be sure will be good?

While running a major company requires that you make decisions that will affect smaller companies or consumers poorly it's not necessarily evil. It's business and it will often seem quite ugly.

DoPo:
snip

yeah fair enough.

The smug attitude like they were doing the most favourite thing of all gamers ever just ticked me off.

I do play some Sims 3 which I like so I will give them that.

There's a a few things you're overlooking however, such as the fact that EA, while a company interested in making money, seems to me to ONLY be interested in making money. It doesn't matter what they have to do, they'll do it, if a company has a suitably juicy IP, they'll do whatever they can to acquire them and then shut them down after a few million in the pocket. After that, then they threaten their base players that they'll cancel funding for an IP because they didn't sell 50 million copies, when they know it won't happen to begin with. Practices like that are why people call them evil. And they may not always be intentionally evil, but I'd say that ignorance is a far worse type of evil than intentional.

All they see is charts, money signs, and plummeting sales figures indicating them that it's time to cut with the money and run. Then more than a few stories of them blacklisting their employees that leave them with every other place they can get on the phone. Which forces them back into EA's pocket, right where they should be. Fine, you can argue that it's all just a business practice, but if you defend it, then you have lost all respect from me that you've garnered by expressing your opinions, even if I don't agree with them.

Sorry but if "as a corporation, EA needs to make money" is your best argument then im still happy not to give them any.

If EA needs to make money, then it needs to do something that makes me want to give it to them. However, it looks like they don't want to do much of that.

Good post, long and filled with good points.

But yeah I'm not a fan of them mainly because of their practices, like online passes. And their new philosophy on single player games doesn't really make me like them either.

And this is probably just personal but I hate their marketing department. But I hate most marketing departments because most marketing stinks anyway.

No gaming corporation is actually evil.

However, EA is run by dicks.

So, EA, by association, is one massive dick.

Their PR is terrible, they ruin franchises every other Tuesday, they devour other companies like a ravenous beast whose hunger can never be sated.

Because they are greedy.

Not just regular greed, such as Valve, who at least offers us sweet deals for their money, but Ultra-Greed.

The kind that makes them consider the idea of charging per-bullet in the next Battlefield game.

The kind that makes them completely block every single game you bought on Origin for your possible actions in a single one.

The kind that makes people refer to them as Evil.

That is what EA is.

And as soon as they stop treating their consumers like swine, then maybe people will stop calling them evil.

No, they're just a bit shit and total money-grubbers. There are plenty of companies far less obnoxious than them (see: pretty much everyone else in the industry, bar Activision).

They have a poor reputation because they're a poor company, and "they need to make money" is neither a good argument for how they behave, nor is it for us to worry about.

Evil? No. People who call EA evil with a straight face need a serious reality check over what real 'evil' actually looks like.

There are, however, plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike them.

Yes, they are a for-profit company and they need to make money. That's no skin off my nose. What bothers me is that they seem to be completely clueless about it. They blow vast and entirely unnecessary amounts of money on marketing campaigns (all of which seem to end up completely missing the mark anyway, so they might as well have been going round chucking huge wads of the games budget out of the windows of moving cars), and then, because of that, putting a massive Sword of Damocles over the developers by giving them stupidly unrealistic sales targets (that will not be reached, partly thanks to aforementioned shitty marketing), then shutting down entire franchises at the drop of a hat when they fail to reach said targets.

I also accept that EA can't afford to take as many risks as an indie developer, nor did I ever expect them too. However, that does not mean it's a good move to make every IP they own as homogenised as possible. It's counter-intuitive. If they make everything they own look the same as everything that they're trying to compete with in the market, then their products aren't going to stand out among all the already over-saturated genre's of the medium, nor spark the interest of any demographics that their competitors are not catering for, which would seem to me like the perfect way to one-up your rivals. For example, people who already play Dead Space have no interest in playing a co-op action shooter in the Dead Space franchise, and people who already play co-op action shooters have no interest in jumping on to the Dead Space franchise just for the third installment. Therefore, homogenising Dead Space 3 in order to make it 'appeal to a wider audience' will have exactly the opposite effect, and was a stupid idea.

I don't mind my businessmen being greedy. That comes with the territory. I do mind when my businessmen are incompetent, and that's my problem with EA. They're incompetent.

Yopaz:
Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing. EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

I disagree. I don't really have much of an opinion on EA, but I'm pretty sure doing stuff for personal gain at the expense of other people is perfectly evil. Can you really turn around to me and say that Bernie Madoff ripping off all of his family and friends for the sake of being rich wasn't evil? Or hell, that Banana company that, when their pesticide of choice was found to be poisonous to their workers and was banned in America, continued to use it in countries other than the USA because it'd cost a bit of cash to swap pesticides (and not irreparably damage their employees), that's pretty evil. Or slavery, that's got to be evil right?

Yes, EA isn't anywhere near that bad. But saying the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others is never evil seems a bit ridiculous.

Edit: Oh, and to those saying they need to do it to make money, wasn't there a news article on the escapist a while ago saying their stock was falling? It's clearly not working for them, perhaps they should be less daft. (unless of course I made this up to make myself laugh and to be able to make a point.)

I wouldn't say they're amazing, far from it. But there are far worse evils out there (Activision-Blizzard) In fact, they gave me a free AAA game (DA:O) just for having Origin, no other game company besides Valve (Portal 1) has done that.

Dangit2019:
You make good points, but I still dislike the company. Mainly because the constant screwing over of companies, shady practices, Origin, and Online Passes.

By the way, this thread might get a little lengthy...

Captcha: Who makes the total lean product line?
options:
A1 supplements
GNC
The vitamin shoppe
Super Supplements
Vitamin World

How the fuck would I know?

Okay, the way captchas are treating users indicates that I'm supposed to know who has exactly what products if I am to be believed as a human. Something is a bit wrong with that.

Dude, captcha is PUSHING PRODUCTS on you, you didn't find that scary BEFORE?

An OP is wrong on the account of Pandemic. Destroy All Humans! 2 was an improvement over the original in every way, things were looking UP for them if anything else.

You want a good example of why EA is a bad company? Just look at that FUSE game. Before EA got their hands on the studio making it, it was a colorful looking game set in the near future with a sort of campy, james bond style to it. Now it's gritty, brown and realistic.

Look at Dead Space 3. LOOK AT IT.

Look at Mass Effect 3. Rushed ending and a half finished metagame.

Syzygy23:

Dangit2019:
You make good points, but I still dislike the company. Mainly because the constant screwing over of companies, shady practices, Origin, and Online Passes.

By the way, this thread might get a little lengthy...

Captcha: Who makes the total lean product line?
options:
A1 supplements
GNC
The vitamin shoppe
Super Supplements
Vitamin World

How the fuck would I know?

Okay, the way captchas are treating users indicates that I'm supposed to know who has exactly what products if I am to be believed as a human. Something is a bit wrong with that.

Dude, captcha is PUSHING PRODUCTS on you, you didn't find that scary BEFORE?

An OP is wrong on the account of Pandemic. Destroy All Humans! 2 was an improvement over the original in every way, things were looking UP for them if anything else.

You want a good example of why EA is a bad company? Just look at that FUSE game. Before EA got their hands on the studio making it, it was a colorful looking game set in the near future with a sort of campy, james bond style to it. Now it's gritty, brown and realistic.

Look at Dead Space 3. LOOK AT IT.

Look at Mass Effect 3. Rushed ending and a half finished metagame.

What FUSE game? As for Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3, I've never played Dead Space at all, and the game's not even out yet, so judging it completely is a bit rash.

And I actually really liked Mass Effect 3. Was it perfect? No. But I enjoyed it greatly. It didn't completely destroy the characters I'd grown to enjoy, and it did everything I expected out of it, which was to complete the story in a suitably epic manner. Which is why I hated the original ending (EC is much improvement, to me), but even then, I didn't say "This game that I've been enjoying for the last 20 odd hours, and the series I've put more than 200 hours into, is now complete crap," either.

EA might not be evil, but they're the epitome of giant corporations who have a weakness for NEW and CREATIVE things because businesses just hate taking risks. But they're forgetting this gaming is a business who strives on those. Alas, they will never learn that simply because they never lose money by creating endless sequels of their own product.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked