[DISCLAIMER]: Take this post with a grain of salt, since I'm not stating ANYTHING as absolute fact and am simply speaking from a position which, really, does not have all the information. I just feel that I may be able to point out something that could be valuable insight. Though it may not be. Its really 50/50.
From what I've seen, no, EA isn't evil. However, they
do tend to have somewhat backwards business practices. Here's my list of backwards, flawed, or just outright wrong business practices that I have noticed from just various articles, here on my favorite gaming site, The Escapist. Speaking of, oh look, here we are on The Escapist! Fancy that.
1A):
Code:
They will no longer be releasing any purely single-player games. All games will now have a multi-player or online component.
This is something I simply cannot understand. For one, it is purely a cash-grab, which EA is unfortunately well-known for as it is, but it can potentially take away development time from what can be a quality single-player game. At best, they may have something akin to Mass Effect 3's multi-player mode, which works and can be fun, but has some minor, fundamental flaws.
At worst, they can have something that potentially
breaks the game itself, or detracts so much from the core game that it overshadows the good qualities it has. The worst-case is more likely when the online component is obviously shoehorned in. Please, don't shoehorn online bits into good single-player games.
1B):
Code:
As an extension of 1A, EA also has the policy of requiring any games that have any kind of online component as of late, to have an online pass. One that you need to pay for, had you bought it used.
Ok, since I'm going to assume (Falsely, since I know a lot of people hate EA, but for the sake of the point I'm about to make.) that we all agree that EA isn't evil, used sales most definitely aren't either. They aren't the devil, and online passes
seems to either be EA's way of combating it, simply making more cheap money, or both.
But, regardless if you're paying for new or used, you are buying the game. You should be able to play the whole damn thing that's on the disc. Coincidentally, this is also the argument against on-disc DLC, which is another matter entirely. Still, you should not be punished for either being frugal or poor.
2):
Code:
EA has the unfortunate tendency to have extreme and irrational expectations for games once released, such as sales figures.
Dead Space 3 is the poor recipient of this one. For the franchise to survive, it needs to sell 5 million copies. Unrealistic, extreme, and quite frankly, hearing that will turn off fans that would otherwise buy it, if not for another issue that EA seems to be pushing on it that will be addressed in 3.
From what I can remember, 5 million copies is more than what the original and Dead Space 2 sold, combined. For the sequel to surpass both combined in terms of sales, would frankly require a miracle. And I'm pretty sure EA knows this. Not evil, but certainly suspicious.
3):
Code:
My final point, for the moment I happen to be writing this at least, is that EA seems to be homogenizing its titles to 'appeal to larger audiences'.
Now, I'm not against them making a game appeal to more people, to an extent. However, that does not mean changing the games core formula in any way that is not explicitly meant to be an improvement over something that was wrong in a previous title. Obviously, new IPs are exempt from this one.
Once again, Dead Space 3 is the victim, which seems to have moved so far from the established formula as to be almost unrecognizable, if it weren't for the iconic aesthetic. When a series establishes a formula, it is more often than not better to keep to it than change it on a whim.
As an example of a sequel that moved away from formula as a way to improve would be Resident Evil 4. And even then, fans got pissed. That isn't to say that only new IPs should be the ones to try and innovate, but if a sequel is meant to innovate, it should be to complement the formula, not change it radically.
Otherwise, I find that its best to use a sequel to further the plot, refine the gameplay, and give fans of the original more of what they liked, with enough differences to make it new.
Overall, I'd say that, though certainly not evil, EA tends to shaft themselves, their developers, and more often than either, their customers. If they want to make great gobs of cash and be more successful than they are now, they should listen a little more to customers, be more realistic in their expectations, be more lenient towards their developers in both taking more risks and keeping franchises alive, and pretty much use more common sense.
