E.A. is destroying the gaming business?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

ultramarine486:
massive snip

Um....was there a reason you had quoted me in that post along side Draech?

I'm just curious. I thought it odd you simply just quoted my prior post but said nothing in response. Perhaps it was lost during the posting process?

Draech:
- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
Unlike the forced use of Steam?
Origin is not without its merits, and while it doesn't suppass the current lvl steam has gotten to by being the first to really strike it big it by far surpasses what steam used to be. If you want to hold this against EA then keep your complaining consistent.

No, it doesn't have any "merits", it's just mainly DRM and a very expensive Store. It doesn't offer any of the advantages that Steam does and all of the drawbacks.

- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
We going to get the sob story of how EA killed Westwood again? Forgetting to mention that the original founders of Westwood were the ones that sold out and about half the employees walked out the door the sec they did? No we keeping the revisionist history then? Ok then. Welcome to business. Wrecks happen. Did EA wreck THQ while they were at it?

Yup
image

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
By a relatively small demographic in an echo chamber yes (relative to the number of customers). Yeah thats the problem with the internet. You can easily find yourself in a bubble.

Sure, you go ahead and tell yourself that, it's not like Dragon Age 2 sold below half the units Dragon Age: Origins sold (which was BioWares best-selling title for a long time) with the Sales dropping soon after and the game entirely flatlining afterwards: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.274668-Dragon-Age-2-Sales or that Mass Effect 3 produced one of the largest outcries of any game so far.
OP forgot the debacle over Star Wars: The Old Republic though, which is actually the most important and killed BioWare, it was basically a Success/Failure scenario for their company and they drew the second.

- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)
I am sorry I am going to break this to you, but none of the game developers love you. They dont even know you. They are looking for the best way to get as much money from their work as possible. Just like you are trying to get as much product as possible from your money. Greedy greedy both of you. You dont like the deal, then walk away and take your money else were. This is business. Not a Democracy. Only voice that matters is the one you do with your wallet.

Dead Space 3 will be another giant failure for them, I would be surprised if they manage to sell 2 Million copies overall, their 5 Million Sales projections: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.387181-Dead-Space-3-Needs-5-Million-Sales-Or-Franchise-Goes-Bust-Says-EA are pure reverie.

- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)
Yes we have never seen anything about EA admitting fault. I mean its not like a thread jumped out about how a beta tester got banned from Simcity for posting in a thread turned out to be nothing but jumping the gun, and as soon as it was cleared up then it is like it never happened. Like as if people were actively looking for fuck ups to rage about, but wont even admit fault when they jump the gun....

Oh right, that awfully convenient thing, and it wasn't as if they had an entire track of retarded bans behind them...
http://gamingbolt.com/ea-bans-player-from-playing-dragon-age-2-for-calling-them-devil
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/12/05/ea-origin-bans-update-edition/
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/17/ea-finally-responds-to-forum-bans-also-banning-origin-game-acces/
http://bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefield-3-player-banned-for-72-hours-for-saying-badass-on-forums/

Oh wait...

Yes-Only Bioware

They really are doing their best to run the games industry into the biggest attempt to fuck customers ever.

As much as I hate EA I don't think they're destroying the gaming business, at least not on their own. I think most publisher's are destroying the gaming business. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Capcom, they're all guilty. As Jim Sterling said, they twish new and innovative ways of doing things to match old and archaic ways of doing things to the point of alienating their customers. On top of that there's the draconian DRM that we all hate. So yeah, EA on it's own is not destroying the gaming business, publishers in general are destroying the gaming business.

Also no, I don't buy EA games anymore, but due to financial situation I'm not buying many games at all right now.

Dexter111:
Snipping for waste of space

Oh your doctorate in revised history seems to be paying off Dex. Write to me again when you get over your correlation = causation and you pulling stuff out your ass without standing up. Any argument that isn't shouted by a mob holding a torch doesn't exist in your book it seems.

Listen Dex once you make your move back into the reality where the rest of us live ill be willing to to talk to you. Untill then keep fighting that phantom fight.

In the meantime Ill be in the real world trying to work out how we can make games the best for both parties rather than be under the impression that games are made on dreams and pixie dust and evil corps come to steal the games from the good guy gamers.

Well destroying is a big word, but you are right in some regrets as seen that they make quiet good money of sequels and don't really show how video games should be made, with that I mean really go deep in the game and give every thing 'life' with this is don't mean good Graphics but a good storyline, 3D characters, and really 'feel' the game. That for I think that EA has done quiet somethings wrong and If they really want to become indie:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/e3-2012/9670-E3-EA-Wants-to-Be-Indie

They should stop making sequels and start making original new ideas, and DON'T make Battlefield 4, and also shouldn't have made Crysis 3 unless this will be the 'finish of' of the serries.

Joccaren:
EA aren't harming the industry as such. They're harming their company, and turning some great games and game companies that they bought into piles of crap, but its not having a massive effect on their competitors so far as I can tell. If anything, they're helping their competitors by doing so by driving business away from them.

So, what you are saying is that buying great companies and "turning them into piles of crap" or their prohibitively consumer-hostile business practices which they are pioneering for other companies like InGame DLC, Day-1 DLCs, Online Passes, Microtransactions in SinglePlayer Games, Forcing "Online Elements" into all their games, Always-Online DRM etc. don't do any harm to "the industry"?

Draech:
Oh your doctorate in revised history seems to be paying off Dex. Write to me again when you get over your correlation = causation and you pulling stuff out your ass without standing up. Any argument that isn't shouted by a mob holding a torch doesn't exist in your book it seems.

And you go ahead and continue blindly defending one of the worst and most damaging gaming companies in existence that are mainly out to screw you out of as much money as possible and give you as little as they can while in the meantime eroding your consumer rights. One of these days I'm sure they'll reward you for your valiant dedication and give you a gold star or something. xD

I'm gonna derail this a little bit. You know who has amazing business practices? Good Old Games! The have the sales of Steam with DRM free games! :D

EA isn't destroying the game industry. They are just a corporation acting like a corporation. And, yes, corporations are more interested in profit than anything else. However, by trying to squeeze every last drop out of customers through DRM, day one DLC, and micro transactions, all they are doing is encouraging piracy. When it is more convenient to pirate a game than to buy it, then the distributor has failed. With the piracy, I get past the DRM through a simple crack; with day one DLC, I get a crack for that as well; etc. While most of you may think that this is how it will always be- pirates vs. corporation- I actually disagree.

I will once again bring up GOG. I buy a game for $2 on one of their sales. Now, because I have infinite downloads, I can play in on any computer I want and even show my friends by downloading it on their computer. It is the equivalent to lending your friend a game. It is so convenient that piracy is a hassle in comparison, not to mention that most of the games on GOG are indie, so you'll be supporting small businesses. There are good businesses out there, but for some reason we ignore them.

The problem with the industry really is that the only games that "gamers" care about are the AAA budget games. Indie devs are the future of gaming if we allow it. They are the ones who attempt to revolutionize, experiment, take risks, and care about customers. Yet, as a subculture, "gamers" brush off the indie games as "other" with little regard to how that affects the industry. AAA devs tend to to very shitty things for the sake of profit, but you don't have to put up with it if you don't want to. If you don't like a business practice but still want the game then don't buy it; play it if you can, but please don't buy it. It's that easy.

Dexter111:

Draech:
Oh your doctorate in revised history seems to be paying off Dex. Write to me again when you get over your correlation = causation and you pulling stuff out your ass without standing up. Any argument that isn't shouted by a mob holding a torch doesn't exist in your book it seems.

And you go ahead and continue blindly defending one of the worst and most damaging gaming companies in existence that are mainly out to screw you out of as much money as possible and give you as little as they can while in the meantime eroding your consumer rights. One of these days I'm sure they'll reward you for your valiant dedication and give you a gold star or something. xD

Pigeon holing again?

Well its nice to see I was right and you never change.

Draech:

Dexter111:

Draech:
Oh your doctorate in revised history seems to be paying off Dex. Write to me again when you get over your correlation = causation and you pulling stuff out your ass without standing up. Any argument that isn't shouted by a mob holding a torch doesn't exist in your book it seems.

And you go ahead and continue blindly defending one of the worst and most damaging gaming companies in existence that are mainly out to screw you out of as much money as possible and give you as little as they can while in the meantime eroding your consumer rights. One of these days I'm sure they'll reward you for your valiant dedication and give you a gold star or something. xD

Pigeon holing again?

Well its nice to see I was right and you never change.

Considering you jump onto every chance to defend EA like it's Jesus baby brother, you can't really fault someone for trying to hit you on the head with old facts in hopes of you getting them?

EA isn't ruining the industry. They are participating in it's eventual demise. But not alone. However, a telling sign of how shitty they are is that their fans either have to ignore their flaws. "No, Origin is super good! SUPER GOOD BECAUSE I HAVE AN ANECDOTAL STORY ABOUT A FRIEND OF MINE WHO WAS TREATED POORLY BY STEAM CUSTOMER SERVICE!" or "I like this game! Stop being mean!". Oooor, they have to do the "Well other companies are even worse! Like...Enron!"
Amusingly enough I've never met anyone trying to defend, say, Activision, like that.

Thoric485:
EA is a graveyard, and limbo, and hell for excellent studios and franchises with decade old histories. Thankfully gamers are starting to notice the stink of rot and sulfur. Matter of time before investors do too.

That's a great and very fitting allegory:
image

Draech:
Yeah well the thing about impressions is that they can be subjective. If you spend your time on Reddit you would have thought that EA was going under years ago. Guess again. Reality begs to differ.

Reality can be a real bitch sometimes...
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-21-stock-ticker-why-eas-market-valuation-has-crashed
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/183525/the_burning_of_star_wars_the_old_.php
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/31/well-looks-like-thats-it-for-medal-of-honor-then/

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/01/31/ea-posts-45-million-net-loss-in-q3-reduces-revenue-forecast/
http://www.gamefront.com/the-history-of-bioware-infographic/
image

Thoric485:
Looks to me Pandemic was simply the redheaded stepchild of the EP/EA deal, with BioWare being the real objective and Pandemic having no place in EA's company structure. Considering Riccitiello was a party on both sides of the agreement, it seems like an irresponsible way to handle 200 people's jobs.

Yep, Riccitiello only did the deal and bought Bioware/Pandemic for Star Wars: The Old Republic in the first place. He had little diamonds in his eyes, because back in 2007 World of Warcraft was what looked like the most profitable game in the world and he wanted one of his very own, so he pokered high and as we know by now ultimately lost.
They put A LOT of money and time (5+ years) into that game, since it was supposed to be their flagship.

Pandemic wasn't really needed, but they were part of the deal. As the Infographic above also shows the deal Riccitiello made was also a little weird in that he basically bought VG Holding from himself.
Back in 2005 the Bioware docs took an investment deal with Elevation Partners for $300 Million (while Riccitiello was part of their Board) and they joined forces with Pandemic: http://www.gamespot.com/news/elevation-bioware-pandemic-joining-forces-6137143

They got stock options and got to be shareholders after their companies went public following that deal, they were likely also promised the moon e.g. same old crap about independence from publishers and safe monetary backing/funding and all that, they immediately invested a lot of the money to open up BioWare Austin and begin proper work on SW:ToR, which was both announced March 13, 2006 and was one of the main reasons for the EA buyout:

Carefully referred to as a "creative and management partnership," the new operation is a holding company called BioWare/Pandemic Studios. BioWare's two cofounders, Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka, and Pandemic's two cofounders, Andrew Goldman and Josh Resnick, will become shareholders and senior executives. As one might expect, Riccitiello becomes the company's CEO. The 400 employees of both studios will also receive stakes in BioWare/Pandemic, and the studios in Los Angeles, Edmonton, Canada, and Brisbane, Australia, will continue to operate largely as before.

According to Elevation, the BioWare/Pandemic deal is even bigger than the Eidos acquisition, being a "combined investment" of more than $300 million, including future funding. It also could have major repercussions within the game industry. Its express design is to sidestep the traditional publisher-developer relationship, where the latter is dependent on the former for funding, via the injection of outside capital.

"Some developers have chosen the path of selling to publishers, and that's a viable path," Resnick told GameSpot. "We have specifically chosen not to go down that route because it was important for us to maintain our independence. You know we really look for inspiration in companies like Pixar, because they're able to remain independent from distribution partners and increase their focus on creating great products."

Later Ricitiello became CEO of EA again and bought the developer duo off of Elevation Partners for $860 Million, they likely got a high payoff for their stock, but at that point they didn't really have any choice, no matter how they felt. If anyone made lots of money off of the deal it's likely Riccitiello. Just imagine first brokering a deal to buy a company for $300 Million and become their CEO, then turning around and leaving to become EAs CEO and broker a deal to buy the very same company for $860 Million nearly two years later, almost tripling the initial investment (which seems awfully close to Insider-trading to me).
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20071011006083&newsLang=en

Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ:ERTS) today announced an agreement with Elevation Partners to acquire VG Holding Corp. -- the owner of both BioWare Corp. and Pandemic Studios. This acquisition gives EA a strong competitive position in key genres in interactive entertainment: action, adventure and role-playing games. The two studios have been recognized for creating some of the highest-quality games in the industry.

Draech:
Pigeon holing again?

Well its nice to see I was right and you never change.

If you ever have anything worthwhile to say, that isn't borderline insulting my intelligence or some sort of fanboyism in defense of EA I'll get back to you.
Maybe it'd be nice to even know your motives, ThriKreen at least admitted that he (worked?) for EA and I kinda get it in his case, it was a large part of his life. You, I don't get.

NortherWolf:

Draech:

Dexter111:

And you go ahead and continue blindly defending one of the worst and most damaging gaming companies in existence that are mainly out to screw you out of as much money as possible and give you as little as they can while in the meantime eroding your consumer rights. One of these days I'm sure they'll reward you for your valiant dedication and give you a gold star or something. xD

Pigeon holing again?

Well its nice to see I was right and you never change.

Considering you jump onto every chance to defend EA like it's Jesus baby brother, you can't really fault someone for trying to hit you on the head with old facts in hopes of you getting them?

EA isn't ruining the industry. They are participating in it's eventual demise. But not alone. However, a telling sign of how shitty they are is that their fans either have to ignore their flaws. "No, Origin is super good! SUPER GOOD BECAUSE I HAVE AN ANECDOTAL STORY ABOUT A FRIEND OF MINE WHO WAS TREATED POORLY BY STEAM CUSTOMER SERVICE!" or "I like this game! Stop being mean!". Oooor, they have to do the "Well other companies are even worse! Like...Enron!"
Amusingly enough I've never met anyone trying to defend, say, Activision, like that.

Oh old facts?

Like when dex pulls out shit like that picture where multiple on that list has already been debunked, and others are just whines like "Bioware" isn't good anymore?

Completely ignoring the facts that I have already stated about Westwood and Bullfrog? No they dont fit his worldview so they must be disregarded

btw

"No, Steam is super good! SUPER GOOD BECAUSE I HAVE AN ANECDOTAL STORY ABOUT A FRIEND OF MINE WHO WAS TREATED POORLY BY ORIGIN'S CUSTOMER SERVICE!"

Seem familiar? Read my post and you will find me actaully saying that Origin is inferior to Steam, but that the complaints are highly exaggerated.

So you you can take you pigeon holing ways back to where you and Dex got them. I dont fit them. You trying to force the token of "Corporate bitch" on me is as grounded in reality as your argumentation.

Here is the thing. I am not defending EA as a whole. EA has plenty of issues that needs to be dealt with and will result ruin, but I am attacking flawed logic of people like Dex who seems to think the only person that exists in gaming is them.

Dexter111:

If you ever have anything worthwhile to say, that isn't borderline insulting my intelligence or some sort of fanboyism in defense of EA I'll get back to you.
Maybe it'd be nice to even know your motives, ThriKreen at least admitted that he (worked?) for EA and I kinda get it in his case, it was a large part of his life. You, I don't get.

Yes.... its is pure fanboism.

Not the fact that your reasoning is about as holy as the outcome of a Mexican showdown.

And then now going to ad hominum because you have no real argument (as per usual)

Since you skipped it so fast with your flawed over simplified picture.

Did half of Westwoods studio walk out the door as soon Brett Sperry and Louis Castle receive their golden handshake or did I make that up?

Was Bullfrog acquired while Molenuex was VP at EA or not? Were Bullfrog bleeding money at the time or not?

I know that the world is monochrome from your eyes, but once you grow up and see its not as black and white as you make it out to be you might even be able to use your diligence for something other than a circlejerk.

Tell me Dex or buzz off. Your hopeless attempts are changing history to fit a picture so self is nauseating

Draech:
Yes.... its is pure fanboism.

Not the fact that your reasoning is about as holy as the outcome of a Mexican showdown.

And then now going to ad hominum because you have no real argument (as per usual)

Since you skipped it so fast with your flawed over simplified picture.

Did half of Westwoods studio walk out the door as soon Brett Sperry and Louis Castle receive their golden handshake or did I make that up?

Was Bullfrog acquired while Molenuex was VP at EA or not? Were Bullfrog bleeding money at the time or not?

I know that the world is monochrome from your eyes, but once you grow up and see its not as black and white as you make it out to be you might even be able to use your diligence for something other than a circlejerk.

Tell me Dex or buzz off. Your hopeless attempts are changing history to fit a picture so self is nauseating

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to prove or what point you are even trying to make? EA bought large shares in Bullfrog in 1994 and Molyneux did become VP after that (similar to Ray Muzyka by the way). They completed the Sale in 1995 and he likely got a nice Payoff:
image

2 years later in 1997 he left EA to found Lionhead, because he felt "restricted in his creativity". Many more people left during that period and afterwards. The last Bullfrog "products" came out in 2001 and EA closed the studio after.

Westwood was bought out by EA in 1998 because they were part of/owned by Virgin Interactive (which were acquired by EA for $122 Million): http://money.cnn.com/1998/08/17/life/q_ea/

EA (ERTS) will pay Spelling Entertainment Group's (SP) Virgin Interactive unit $122.5 million in cash for Westwood and certain other studio assets. Officials at both companies expect the deal to close at the end of September. Westwood founders Brett Sperry and Louis Castle have signed five-year employment contracts with EA.

A lot of people also felt that the acquisition was intolerable since EA did have a great influence over both the development of the games and the brands going forward.
I would have frankly done the same, because EA is a horrible company to work for.

How does a large part of the staff running away after a forced acquisition because they don't want to work for EA speak for them exactly?

Then they made another few games with the remainders of Westwood and new hires and closed them down in 2003.
I'm afraid that your arguments or logic doesn't particularly speak well in regards to EAs abilities to execute successful acquisitions, keep the bought companies profitable and alive or tap the creative juices of their staff.

They even admitted that they blew it with Bullfrog, Westwood and Origin in an Interview from 2008 and that it was their fault: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/02/riccitiello/

Same thing happened with BioWare, remember articles like those?
http://blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/
http://www.trentoster.com/?page_id=20
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-17-kotor-mass-effect-lead-writer-drew-karpyshyn-leaves-bioware
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/somethingawful-the-plot-of-me3-changed-dramatically-big-big-spoilers.250066288/
http://www.indiegamemag.com/ex-bioware-devs-announce-the-banner-saga/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9453-Goodbye-BioWare-Hello-Indie

They were losing talent early in the process because they didn't want to work for EAs vision of BioWare, more recently as you surely know even the founders left the company: http://gamasutra.com/view/news/177892/BioWares_founding_doctors_leave_video_games_behind.php (likely because of the Aftermath of the TORTanic)
BioWare is just a shell of what it was before EA acquired them, only another "Brand" for a decidedly "EA Studio", and I don't think the remainders will survive that very long either.

Draech:

4RM3D:

No, I disagree.

If a new studio would release their first game, they wouldn't have (m)any fans. Maybe by using the media the said studio could build up anticipation. Maybe one or more of the devs previously work on a well received game earning recognition. Then after the studio releases their first game can fans really be born.

A studio has to earn its fans. And after that respect their fans. Otherwise the studio is going to lose their fans.

It should be said that a fan is not the same thing as a consumer; a person who buys the game. There could be many people buying the game, but not everyone will become a fan.

So in other words how good the game is.... irrelevant? It all about how much old school cred they can pull?

Bullshit.

They got product. Product speaks for it self. You liked the first one? good for you. Dont go thinking that makes you special.

A product can be good. Hell, it can be great. But nobody likes an asshole. Would you by lemonade from a lemonade stand if they farted in your face every time you bought a glass, even if it was the best lemonade you've ever tasted? EA is like that, but instead of flatulence, they rip you off by offering DLC that could have been included with the game on release. I personally will never buy an EA game ever again. There is only so much disrespect I can suffer at the hands of these people. Even though I enjoyed Dead Space and Mass Effect, I'm glad that I only purchased them while on Steam sale for a few bucks. That's what dirty business practices get you.

Dexter111:
So, what you are saying is that buying great companies and "turning them into piles of crap" or their prohibitively consumer-hostile business practices which they are pioneering for other companies like DLC, Day-1 DLCs, Online Passes, Microtransactions in SinglePlayer Games, Forcing "Online Elements" into all their games, Always-Online DRM etc. don't do any harm to "the industry"?

For consumers its not necessarily good news. For the industry itself, far as I've heard videogame sales are generally improving, companies like Activision haven't been effected by EA's idiocy, and the industry itself is doing quite well, so I'd find it hard to say EA has actually harmed it. Maybe it would be better if EA were everyone's chum buddy, and it would have improved by greater amounts, or maybe it wouldn't have.
The greater industry hasn't suffered that much of an adverse effect thanks to EA so far as I can tell. Its mostly just EA itself that has its stock prices constantly falling and who constantly loses consumer trust.

canadamus_prime:
As much as I hate EA I don't think they're destroying the gaming business, at least not on their own. I think most publisher's are destroying the gaming business. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Capcom, they're all guilty. As Jim Sterling said, they twish new and innovative ways of doing things to match old and archaic ways of doing things to the point of alienating their customers. On top of that there's the draconian DRM that we all hate. So yeah, EA on it's own is not destroying the gaming business, publishers in general are destroying the gaming business.

Also no, I don't buy EA games anymore, but due to financial situation I'm not buying many games at all right now.

Wait, what did Square-Enix do?

ShinyCharizard:
EA aren't destroying the game business. They are slowly destroying their own business. The game business is doing fine.

^this

I personally stopped at ME3 only because I wanted to know how the story ends
Now there is nothing EA can hook my interest
They ruined C&C franchise (Generals2 can go and die in a fire as far as I care)
I'm done with Mass Effect
Only thing they could do to interest me would be releasing sequel to Battlefield2142 (the Titan was the most badass mode ever present in any Battlefield game). Also the story was more fair- both EU and PAC were assholes that were grabbing all warm territories they could get. Basically they were jerks out of desperation.
But since all american "bros" likes to jerk off on present day military hardware and portrait themselves as hrrrros that kill all the evil foreigners, it is unlikely :(

Edit:I just realized why there were no US in BF2142- at that time they were steamrolling and occupying all the countries at South America without any challenge. And that paints them in negative light- we can't have this, no sir we can't.

Dexter111:
-snipping-

It looks like I have finally found our common ground Dex

I'm afraid that your arguments don't particularly speak well in regards to EAs abilities to execute successful acquisitions or tap the creative juices of their staff.

I am not arguing that they are good at that. They are corporation. the concept of creativity is not something comprehensible there.

However like I have said already games are not made purely on pixie dust and creativity. There is a fairly complicated order of finances underneath. Its not just dashing studios being killed by an evil corp for no reason.

Furthermore people like yourself want to whitewash history of the mistakes of the studios in order to make corps like look like the big bad bogieman.

The fact I am trying to get out isn't that EA is good, but that it isn't as black and white as you want to make it. If you leave your monochrome viewpoint behind you might even see that.

I would have frankly done the same, because EA is a horrible company to work for.

said the guy I am beginning to doubt worked a day in his life, but at the very least never worked for EA. Yeah I know the follow up with Westwood spouse that you are about to link me but one studio doesn't a company make. Furthermore responsibility falls at ground lvl there.

If you ever get past your preset ideas a them VS us mentality your diligence might actually be useful.

Ill give an example of how you do this.

How does a large part of the staff running away after a forced acquisition because they don't want to work for EA speak for them exactly?

How does it speak of me if I wont work for you on the basis of you being you?

Does it make you a worse person?

If you have the reasoning behind people leaving then get them out. I know that EA as a result of the walkout went all 1984 on the remaining workforce making a self fulfilling prophecy. But what do you know cause the workers to go "I will go elsewhere" in the first place?

Draech:

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
By a relatively small demographic in an echo chamber yes (relative to the number of customers). Yeah thats the problem with the internet. You can easily find yourself in a bubble.

Quick Question. Since most of your answers DO have some basis in facts, this one seems the weakest one of all. Where do you get the idea that is only a minority?

And while we are at it, where are the people that DO like those games and look at them objectively? because otherwise they are just saying that they like it for no apparent reason (they may as well play Gears of War if they are only for the shooty bits)

I got only one thing to say for this Not...As......Much.......As........nintendo. Ea may be bad with the used games, Dlc etc, but atleast they are not the king of milking cashcows to death a few hundred times, but if ANY other game companies do this they get vindicated.

DioWallachia:

Draech:

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
By a relatively small demographic in an echo chamber yes (relative to the number of customers). Yeah thats the problem with the internet. You can easily find yourself in a bubble.

Quick Question. Since most of your answer DO have some basis in facts, this one seems the weakest one of all. Where do you get the idea that is only a minority?

Sales figures compared to stuff like petitions.

Now this isn't completely concrete and the margin for error is quite large. But it is still better than just going by what topics are hot on forums. Besides the overall point is that there is that the internet echo chamber is an unreliable one. And to listen to the loudest voices dont relay reality clearly here.

Edit : After edit

And while we are at it, where are the people that DO like those games and look at them objectively? because otherwise they are just saying that they like it for no apparent reason (they may as well play Gears of War if they are only for the shooty bits)

Now this one goes into the category of it "no one says a thing before something is wrong" it is a lot easier to get complaints than it is to get shoulder claps. Now that doesn't mean that this is the case. A large part may be apathetic about changes. I am not trying to claim there is some big majority with true objectivity out there. Nor am I trying to claim I possess it.

The only thing EA is destroying is itself.

tehpiemaker:

Draech:

4RM3D:

No, I disagree.

If a new studio would release their first game, they wouldn't have (m)any fans. Maybe by using the media the said studio could build up anticipation. Maybe one or more of the devs previously work on a well received game earning recognition. Then after the studio releases their first game can fans really be born.

A studio has to earn its fans. And after that respect their fans. Otherwise the studio is going to lose their fans.

It should be said that a fan is not the same thing as a consumer; a person who buys the game. There could be many people buying the game, but not everyone will become a fan.

So in other words how good the game is.... irrelevant? It all about how much old school cred they can pull?

Bullshit.

They got product. Product speaks for it self. You liked the first one? good for you. Dont go thinking that makes you special.

A product can be good. Hell, it can be great. But nobody likes an asshole. Would you by lemonade from a lemonade stand if they farted in your face every time you bought a glass, even if it was the best lemonade you've ever tasted? EA is like that, but instead of flatulence, they rip you off by offering DLC that could have been included with the game on release. I personally will never buy an EA game ever again. There is only so much disrespect I can suffer at the hands of these people. Even though I enjoyed Dead Space and Mass Effect, I'm glad that I only purchased them while on Steam sale for a few bucks. That's what dirty business practices get you.

Now I am not disagreeing with you, thou we are talking about different things.

I am talking about fans having imaginary value from them being fans.

You are talkign poor business practices hurting the value of the product. Different things.

Dexter111:

Later Ricitiello became CEO of EA again and bought the developer duo off of Elevation Partners for $860 Million, they likely got a high payoff for their stock, but at that point they didn't really have any choice, no matter how they felt. If anyone made lots of money off of the deal it's likely Riccitiello. Just imagine first brokering a deal to buy a company for $300 Million and become their CEO, then turning around and leaving to become EAs CEO and broker a deal to buy the very same company for $860 Million nearly two years later, almost tripling the initial investment.

I'd just like to add this juicy nugget of info. to your pretty awesome quote; You wondered just how much Riccitiello benefited from the Bioware/Pandemic deal, I can tell you it was a straight up $5 million personal bonus from his VG. Holdings shares.

Heck, if I was personally offered that amount of money, screw principles, I'd close down Valve!

I honestly despise them for calling their distribution software Origin. They are basically saying "Hey! Remember that awesome gaming company back in the old days that we massacred?"

Draech:

tehpiemaker:

Draech:

So in other words how good the game is.... irrelevant? It all about how much old school cred they can pull?

Bullshit.

They got product. Product speaks for it self. You liked the first one? good for you. Dont go thinking that makes you special.

A product can be good. Hell, it can be great. But nobody likes an asshole. Would you by lemonade from a lemonade stand if they farted in your face every time you bought a glass, even if it was the best lemonade you've ever tasted? EA is like that, but instead of flatulence, they rip you off by offering DLC that could have been included with the game on release. I personally will never buy an EA game ever again. There is only so much disrespect I can suffer at the hands of these people. Even though I enjoyed Dead Space and Mass Effect, I'm glad that I only purchased them while on Steam sale for a few bucks. That's what dirty business practices get you.

Now I am not disagreeing with you, thou we are talking about different things.

I am talking about fans having imaginary value from them being fans.

You are talkign poor business practices hurting the value of the product. Different things.

I understand that just because your a fan doesn't mean you should get some special treatment, and if we're looking at this thing from a completely unbiased point of view we could say that fans are merely customers you can depend on for easy cash. It would be correct to. But the feeling I garnered from reading your previous posts was that business is simply business and that's what we should accept. However, there is more to the marketing process than simply finding creative ways to make more for giving less, there's respect.

If you treat your audience as if they are merely money farms you're bound to lose customers that would have otherwise been all to happy to shell out a few more bucks. As for me, even though I only bought there games for much less than worth, I wanted to give them nothing. I can only assume that these are the reasons many choose to pirate games instead of buying games when they either go down in price or on sale.

Now, there are those who will buy a game regardless of the producers, but I consider these people outliers. They could not care for a number or reason: faithfulness unto the point of stupidity, being rich, uninformed, or maybe they just don't buy games that often and can't tell the difference between Valve or Electronic Arts. But I can't take that risk when it comes to my purchases. I don't get a lot of cash so I have to be picky about what I buy, and if one game producer sucks up more cash than another, I take notice.

Draech:

Sales figures compared to stuff like petitions.

Now this isn't completely concrete and the margin for error is quite large. But it is still better than just going by what topics are hot on forums.

And while we are at it, where are the people that DO like those games and look at them objectively? because otherwise they are just saying that they like it for no apparent reason (they may as well play Gears of War if they are only for the shooty bits)

Now this one goes into the category of it "no one says a thing before something is wrong" it is a lot easier to get complaints than it is to get shoulder claps. Now that doesn't mean that this is the case. A large part may be apathetic about changes. I am not trying to claim there is some big majority with true objectivity out there. Nor am I trying to claim I possess it.

Mnn... that sounded really weird, almost like "no one was complaining until the ending came and made everyone go batshit" even when there are people complaining about ME since ME2 came out (2010):

http://www.youtube.com/user/smudboy/videos

Anyway, the way i see it, its more easy to complain because:
1)People are so jaded and so tired of being constantly harased by the sheer stupidity of the companies that they will not hold back anymore.
2)It seems that some people are under the notion that there are things that gaming (or storytelling in general) should have overcome already but developers keep doing it over and over.

Take for example horror movies that STILL open with the couple having sex and being (predictably) killed in the first minutes:

TL;DR: People grow up and now everything looks like shit because they are smarter now. They expect fiction to catch up to them and surprice them with the same child-like wonder of before.

3)90% of everything is shit: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw

DioWallachia:

Draech:

Sales figures compared to stuff like petitions.

Now this isn't completely concrete and the margin for error is quite large. But it is still better than just going by what topics are hot on forums.

And while we are at it, where are the people that DO like those games and look at them objectively? because otherwise they are just saying that they like it for no apparent reason (they may as well play Gears of War if they are only for the shooty bits)

Now this one goes into the category of it "no one says a thing before something is wrong" it is a lot easier to get complaints than it is to get shoulder claps. Now that doesn't mean that this is the case. A large part may be apathetic about changes. I am not trying to claim there is some big majority with true objectivity out there. Nor am I trying to claim I possess it.

Mnn... that sounded really weird, almost like "no one was complaining until the ending came and made everyone go batshit" even when there are people complaining about ME since ME2 came out (2010):

http://www.youtube.com/user/smudboy/videos

Anyway, the way i see it, its more easy to complain because:
1)People are so jaded and so tired of being constantly harased by the sheer stupidity of the companies that they will not hold back anymore.
2)It seems that some people are under the notion that there are things that gaming (or storytelling in general) should have overcome already but developers keep doing it over and over.

Take for example horror movies that STILL open with the couple having sex and being (predictably) killed in the first minutes:

TL;DR: People grow up and now everything looks like shit because they are smarter now. They expect fiction to catch up to them and surprice them with the same child-like wonder of before.

3)90% of everything is shit: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw

The word "stuff" in "stuff like petitions" is doing a lot of work here.

What I am trying to compare is the sales figures compared to things like the amount of youtube videos, how many people sign petitions, ect.

The whole overall point I am trying to make isn't that the games dont deserve the flak they get, but that you can easily fill a concert hall of people who think the same about ME when the game sold millions of copies. That doesn't mean that concert hall is representative of the opinion of the game.

Now your reasoning why people might dislike things may be very right. I havn't gone that much into, but its not what I am trying to say i know.

I would say there is a large issue with brand building here where expectations clash with reality. The concept of refining a experience is setup to create division as well. Maybe there are people who wouldn't have like ME 1 who tried ME 2 and only liked it for the changes that a person who liked ME 1 disliked. Is the new guy wrong for liking it then?

tehpiemaker:

Draech:

tehpiemaker:

A product can be good. Hell, it can be great. But nobody likes an asshole. Would you by lemonade from a lemonade stand if they farted in your face every time you bought a glass, even if it was the best lemonade you've ever tasted? EA is like that, but instead of flatulence, they rip you off by offering DLC that could have been included with the game on release. I personally will never buy an EA game ever again. There is only so much disrespect I can suffer at the hands of these people. Even though I enjoyed Dead Space and Mass Effect, I'm glad that I only purchased them while on Steam sale for a few bucks. That's what dirty business practices get you.

Now I am not disagreeing with you, thou we are talking about different things.

I am talking about fans having imaginary value from them being fans.

You are talkign poor business practices hurting the value of the product. Different things.

I understand that just because your a fan doesn't mean you should get some special treatment, and if we're looking at this thing from a completely unbiased point of view we could say that fans are merely customers you can depend on for easy cash. It would be correct to. But the feeling I garnered from reading your previous posts was that business is simply business and that's what she would except. However, there is more to the marketing process than simply finding creative ways to make more for giving less, there's respect.

If you treat your audience as if they are merely money farms you're bound to lose customers that would have otherwise been all to happy to shell out a few more bucks. As for me, even though I only bought there games for much less than worth, I wanted to give them nothing. I can only assume that these are the reasons many choose to pirate games instead of buying games when they either go down in price or on sale.

Now, there are those who will buy a game regardless of the producers, but I consider these people outliers. They could not care for a number or reason: faithfulness unto the point of stupidity, being rich, uninformed, or maybe they just don't buy games that often and can't tell the difference between Valve or Electronic Arts. But I can't take that risk when it comes to my purchases. I don't get a lot of cash so I have to be picky about what I buy, and if one game producer sucks up more cash than another, I take notice.

Well yeah. You should expect them trying to screw you over. They are on the other side of the deal. They want as much money as possible for their work and you want as much work as possible for your money. Conflicting interests here.

However That isn't the same as saying "shut up and take it". Far from it. You should only take the deal that you think is good for you. And since we are talking luxury products here and not insulin you got all the incentive in the world to play hard to get regardless of how much you desire the product.

Valve has done a great job at making their product and their deals great, but that doesn't make them my friend.

Draech:

tehpiemaker:

Draech:

Now I am not disagreeing with you, thou we are talking about different things.

I am talking about fans having imaginary value from them being fans.

You are talkign poor business practices hurting the value of the product. Different things.

I understand that just because your a fan doesn't mean you should get some special treatment, and if we're looking at this thing from a completely unbiased point of view we could say that fans are merely customers you can depend on for easy cash. It would be correct to. But the feeling I garnered from reading your previous posts was that business is simply business and that's what she would except. However, there is more to the marketing process than simply finding creative ways to make more for giving less, there's respect.

If you treat your audience as if they are merely money farms you're bound to lose customers that would have otherwise been all to happy to shell out a few more bucks. As for me, even though I only bought there games for much less than worth, I wanted to give them nothing. I can only assume that these are the reasons many choose to pirate games instead of buying games when they either go down in price or on sale.

Now, there are those who will buy a game regardless of the producers, but I consider these people outliers. They could not care for a number or reason: faithfulness unto the point of stupidity, being rich, uninformed, or maybe they just don't buy games that often and can't tell the difference between Valve or Electronic Arts. But I can't take that risk when it comes to my purchases. I don't get a lot of cash so I have to be picky about what I buy, and if one game producer sucks up more cash than another, I take notice.

Well yeah. You should expect them trying to screw you over. They are on the other side of the deal. They want as much money as possible for their work and you want as much work as possible for your money. Conflicting interests here.

However That isn't the same as saying "shut up and take it". Far from it. You should only take the deal that you think is good for you. And since we are talking luxury products here and not insulin you got all the incentive in the world to play hard to get regardless of how much you desire the product.

Valve has done a great job at making their product and their deals great, but that doesn't make them my friend.

Well okay then. I accept what you have to say. The truth is the truth and I will not be made a spoof. Although, I feel as if I should argue more on some points, I'm afraid that I might lose sight of what of what I was fighting for in the first place. So all I can say is that I agree with what you've said to me even though you it felt like you were trying to come off as a uncaring, pessimist who expects the worse in everything. But now I can see that your more of a realist. (because there most certainly is a difference.)

Yabba:

canadamus_prime:
As much as I hate EA I don't think they're destroying the gaming business, at least not on their own. I think most publisher's are destroying the gaming business. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Capcom, they're all guilty. As Jim Sterling said, they twish new and innovative ways of doing things to match old and archaic ways of doing things to the point of alienating their customers. On top of that there's the draconian DRM that we all hate. So yeah, EA on it's own is not destroying the gaming business, publishers in general are destroying the gaming business.

Also no, I don't buy EA games anymore, but due to financial situation I'm not buying many games at all right now.

Wait, what did Square-Enix do?

Well to be honest, that one I'm going on the word of our resident Jim Sterling, but apparently they've turned that mobile Final Fantasy game into a Free 2 Pay type thing, IE you buy the game and then you have to buy more through microtransactions.

canadamus_prime:

Yabba:

canadamus_prime:
As much as I hate EA I don't think they're destroying the gaming business, at least not on their own. I think most publisher's are destroying the gaming business. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Capcom, they're all guilty. As Jim Sterling said, they twish new and innovative ways of doing things to match old and archaic ways of doing things to the point of alienating their customers. On top of that there's the draconian DRM that we all hate. So yeah, EA on it's own is not destroying the gaming business, publishers in general are destroying the gaming business.

Also no, I don't buy EA games anymore, but due to financial situation I'm not buying many games at all right now.

Wait, what did Square-Enix do?

Well to be honest, that one I'm going on the word of our resident Jim Sterling, but apparently they've turned that mobile Final Fantasy game into a Free 2 Pay type thing, IE you buy the game and then you have to buy more through microtransactions.

I hadn't actually read your comment until now and it quite well highlights the whole problem with the big corporate part of the gaming industry.

They are not as useful as they once were and what made the necessary in the past is making them arbitrary now. With stuff like digital distribution, kickstarter and the ability to target your audience directly, the concepts of hitting the largest demographics has become outdated. Furthermore what used to be the speed bump of distribution has become non-existent in the form of digital.

The worst part is that the need for security hampers their ability to succeed. When you only want safe bets, but it turns out that the only safe ones are experimental then you got problems brewing.

There is also the point that a lot of the DRM today comes as part of a package today that has more potential than it is showing off. Something as "simple" as Eve and Dust intergame connection is made possible through Eve being always online. In the meantime a large part of the gaming audience doesn't see the potential because its fruits just isn't there yet and it is just another pill they have to swallow.

4RM3D:
There is a general consensus that EA is doing more bad than good to the gaming business.

Quite a few arguments have been made against EA (in no specific order):
- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)

Which Steam was already doing years before.

- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked

You know how many companies have folded recently that aren't under EA?
Furthermore, for every company that EA buys there's a company that's selling itself to EA. Why does no one ever blame the company for allowing itself to be bought in the first place?

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)

So, their games are still being sold.
One must also wonder whether they would be under the same scrutiny if they were not owned by EA.

- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)

Team Fortress 2 Hats
Diablo 3 Auction House
etcetera

- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)

You mean in the same way that Valve didn't own up to not releasing Episode 3?
their response being roughly: 'Oh we never actually meant that episodic content was going to be more regularly releases, you know, we were just going to release a a few, see how it went, see what the fans wanted and went from there. You didn't think we were going to finish episode 3 in a timely manner did you? don't be absurd! hahaha'

Point is, many companies do the same thing. It's part of being professional.

- (EDIT) Rolling out yearly installments of the same game (e.g. EA Sports)

If people are buying, why would they stop releasing it? Get people to stop buying it and maybe they'll change their approach.

The same criticism could be levelled at COD and similarily yearly-released games.
Magic the Gathering?
etcetera.

...And the list probably goes on.

My question is two-fold:
- Do you believe EA is harming the gaming business?
- Do you still buy games from EA?

I think EA like every company out there is a business, and behind that business is the goal of making money and still having a job next week to feed the kids. That's what every company is. If a company gives you something for free, it's because they think doing so will help you spend more money on them, similarily a company like EA takes a different approach and makes the player pay up front for what they want. They test the market, to see what people are willing to pay and the choice to pay or not is in the hands of the consumer.

I buy games from EA, I buy games from any company. I don't care who publishes a game, I simply buy a game if I like it. If I really like a developer, I might go out of my way to buy their games but other than that, no I don't care who puts out a game.

Honestly, what I think is harming the gaming industry more is free to play games. I mean there are all these games out there that are monopolizing people's time and keeping them from playing and supporting other games. Same is said of any major game like Call of Duty. If someone used to buy 12 games a year, but then started playing COD, and now they buy 4 games a year because they play BLOPS2 all year long then of course it's hurting the business.

If someone skips Skyrim and instead puts 100 hours into unlocking a pistol in Planetside 2 or whatever then yeah it's hurting the business.

A healthy economy to me is about choice and competition, and about consumption of course. People need to keep putting back into the economy to keep it growing.

But now things seems like they're being more monopolized. We have Steam heading down the road of monopoly on digital distribitution, now Steam is trying to infiltrate the console market as well. And on top of that you have other games, whether they be Team Fortress 2, or any free to play game that just require such an investment of time that people don't want to play other games. People play nothing but Diablo 3, or nothing but, Planetside 2 or World of Tanks or whatever, spending hundreds of hours unlocking some gadget or spending cash to unlock it faster and putting more money into that game than they would a regular-priced retail game.

Either way you've got people spending more time on one game, and less time and money on other games.
And frankly I don't see EA doing any of that.

I will tell you some things that EA does well:

1. Release games in an orderly and PROFESSIONAL fashion. (see HL2:Episode 3 again)
2. Release games that are experiences, with set beginnings, stories and ends. (DS, DA, ME)
3. Generally put the big bucks behind the big franchises if nothing else. (ME)

As I said before, EA is a business, like anyone else, they are out to make money, like everyone else. But they do some things right just like other companies that are held with angelic reverence do some things wrong. And if EA does some things wrong, then just don't spend the money. It doesn't make them evil, it just makes them bad business people, just like someone else is not a "good company" just a "better businessman" really.

Drizzitdude:
I personally hate EA just for their buisness practices,

Example One :" Oh whats that consumer? you bought the year old game used? HOW DARE YOU! You get nothing from us unless you throw us 10 pity dollars for the online pass to pay the online portion of the game we clearly labeled as part of the core experience on the back of the box. Read the fine print bitch."

Hahaha, this is funny because after a year most games that don't start with the words "call of duty" wont have an online community anyway.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked