EA is not evil.

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Of course EA is not evil! That's Activision.

EA is stupid.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Evil? No. "Evil" is a decent epithet if you look like a mixture of a sixties' superspy and Pinhead, and happen to be voiced by Tim Curry at his most mellifluous. "Evil" is a Saturday morning cartoon leftover.

EA's just focused on profit deals, and profit deals sometimes involve screwing their customer base or any beloved IPs or developers. Check out Pach Attack on GameTrailers; this guy tears down every single assumption you might have concerning the Big Three.

Publishers don't wring their hands and twirl their moustaches while gleefully thinking of whose life they could ruin just for the sheer fuck of it. They worry about what makes them money.

Why is EA churning out Battlefield sequels? Money. Why sports games each year? Money. Why do they seem hell-bent on homogenizing their catalogue into one big shooting gallery? Say it with me - money.

Videos like "EA in a nutshell" are comforting because they give the illusion that EA could learn the true meaning of Christmas, or as though some Christ-like figure in gaming could cure them of their wanton need for filthy lucre.

EA's just a business. It's not evil, it's doing what it perceives as being a good way to keep the shareholders happy. That sucks for us gamers, of course, but hey, that's Capitalism for ya.

<youtube=e-LE0ycgkBQ>

It's a cute video, but it oversimplifies things to an obscene degree.

 

[FalloutJack]

No offense, Bob, but shouldn't you be discussing this with the loudest voices who say what EA is, not with this ocean tide of Excapists? I mean, why push the rock up that hill in Hell, right? When this thread is over, even if you've made a point somewhere, it won't actually stem anything. You have...an opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion. Tell me, after six pages, does it seem to be turning into a fact yet?

Fair point, but I feel that if I have shown one person that EA is a business, nothing more, nothing less, and that their actions to make money are, for the most part (excepting things like Pandemic) ethical, I have accomplished something.

Of course, if I get a chance to point out the hypocrisy of slamming EA for actions other companies get away with doing with little more than a finger shaking (Rockstar Wives, anyone?), that's a bonus.

And what better place to do it than somewhere where you will get verbally lynched for not hating EA?

You make an interesting point with THAT, in turn, but the thing is that they're unilaterally slamming EA because they're making the most waves right now. It's a fallacy to do so, but it doesn't make them entirely wrong here. There IS trouble, it SHOULD be handled, and then when it's done with people WILL start complaining about the next guy in line. We both know that's what people do.

Now, the thing is that EA is a business...but this business has the worst PR department ever. It's gonna get burned and all the effort to turn a few heads isn't going to stem that. The score is that someone is still right in some manner about HOW this company is bad. These massive throngs are not as concerned over the why as the what, as in what to be done.

My point is - and I'm aware that I've totally made this a meta-discussion by talking like this - is that the first thing to do is not discuss this with the shrill cry of people who don't want to hear that smack-talk. It's to open up a dialogue with somebody other people are listening to. If you have a point, it would be validated better there.

 

[lowhat]

For a start, pleasure is a gain, in fact, an argument could be made that everything we do for ourselves is for some form of pleasure or satisfaction or whatever emotion. An increase in money may yield logical rewards, but the only reason we seek them is to lower our stress levels and increase endorphin levels and all that.

Anyway, what's the name of that fallacy where you exaggerate your opponents points to the point of absurdity? I think you're doing that. I talked about a line earlier, and not knowing the exact point the line resides, you just have to do it on a case by case basis, and peoples results will vary wildly. I just can't accept a definition that claims that slave owning and Bernie Madoff are not evil. Hell, I'd argue that these types of things are more evil, as they are made by more aware minds. Anyone who needlessly harms people for no reason could be argued to be not evil at all, just mentally ill, and not in control of their actions. But that could, in turn, be extended to pretty much every immoral action, so we probably shouldn't follow it through.

And, correct me if I'm wrong but

Am I wrong for using a different definition than you?

kinda makes it sound as if you feel I'm attacking you. That honestly was not my intent, I just felt a counterpoint needed to be added to the thread, because I disagreed with that logic and definition. So sorry and nothing personal and all that.

(oh, and this is in brackets because it's not really important, but my line about not arguing with dictionaries was quite ironic, but irony is almost impossible to carry across in text without making it blatantly obvious or converting it to sarcasm, so yeah, coolio).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Congratulations on doing research, unlike me truly you are something else. But I asked you what the reason for deliberate harm was, not the definition for evil.

There is no act without reason. Either the people at EA know they are deliberately harming people, in which case they are "evil", or they aren't aware of it in which case they are ignorant. Neither is more excusable than the other, and I'm not betting on the latter.

Actually looking at your post you said this:

Evil is rarely about wrongdoing without any reason. That's called insanity.

In direct contradiction with the definition I had looked up. I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong or that I am a better person. I am simply stating the facts here. The fact is that evil can be defined as deliberate harm. If you think EA purchased Westwood purely to cause harm then that's a matter you need to take up with someone who wants to listen to conspiracy theories, I do not so I didn't bother to answer your question.

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.

Figured I'd leave this in for you since you don't seem to understand the word despite using it.

Why are you using wikipedia, the website where you can change the entries to say what you want, in an semantics argument, rather than one of the many dictionaries online, as dictionaries are probably the best tool for discerning the meaning of words?

In fact, I'm going to go change the definition of "evil" and "insanity" on wiki, just to invalidate what you're saying.

I am using Wikipedia because contrary to your beliefs making changes based on nothing gets deleted and the original text often gets restored within hours unless you cite a source for the change. I have tested this myself and I often check the sources listed at the end to make sure the article is based on something solid. Wikipedia also provides explanations rather than plain definitions. So do the changes you want. Change the entire article to say that evil means cake. All that will happen is that an administrator will check it, see there's been made some changes lacking citation, see that this is probably made as a joke or some such. Give you a warning about not doing so and that they will block your IP from making changes if they see a pattern.

You're built too low, that one flew right over you.

The point isn't how fast wikipedia corrects errors, the point is that using a mutable source like wikipedia OVER an immutable(to the general public, anyway) source like a dictionary, when debating the meaning of words(i.e. the reason that dictionaries exist), is asinine. If you're going to debate the philosophical meaning of something like evil, well, once again, wiki is pretty much terrible for that, when you have a whole internet at your fingers.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

-snipping-

You are all over the place.

"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365"

Was the original quote.

Escapist miss represented that

Other sites did it more obviously and cut it in middle making it the picture definition of quotemining.

You then say that even thou this isn't what he said, this is what he should be thought off as if it was what he said because that fits with their reputation.

You insist that the quote needs to be interpreted literally, but literally he doesn't say Single player games. He says single player experiences. If you read the quote you know it doesn't fit with the message people are attaching to it. If this is an analyses problem here and you read the qoute differently than me, then that is where we are having our point of conflict.

I am not accusing you being the one who made these articles. I am however saying that you are trying to perpetuate their message using this Quote. And it doesn't fit that message.

I am not all over the place, you keep trying to drag me into your nonsense and I'm struggling to the surface. I am not interested in discussing what the escapist did or did not misrepresent. That has nothing to do with me and I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. I think maybe you just want to argue about it and I'm the one you're standing next to. I can't imagine what else it could be.

I did not say

even thou this isn't what he said, this is what he should be thought off as if it was what he said because that fits with their reputation.

That's just your nonsense caricature of my argument. You want to believe I'm intentionally dishonest so bad you are re-imagining my arguments to suit your desired reality.

I don't insist the quote needs to be interpreted literally, I don't know what you are talking about. Why are you arguing about the meaning of the quote when I agree with you about it? Who do you think you are arguing with? If you're not accusing me of having input in those articles then do me a favor and leave them out of it. What have they got to do with anything? What the the hell is happening? This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

The quote fits the message I described for the reasons I described. If you want to discuss that, ball's in your court. All you have done so far is talk about shit that has nothing to do with me and call me a liar. I'm still pretty sore about that, by the way.

You then completely moved the goalpost and made me into a cooperate whiteknight when that has nothing to do with my argument.

I never moved the goalpost, you're just starting to realize the caricature person you made up doesn't exist.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

Some things that need to be cleared up with regard to your facts here:

EA did take a chance on Mirror's Edge, though one could argue that letting a long time developer who's produced several hit online games for you branch out isn't a massive risk, especially when the title was such a relatively small one. I'd say Dead Space was the bigger risk, but that was made in the same time frame and I'm honestly at a loss as to any title they've taken as big a risk on since.

Ghostbusters wasn't published by them. It was originally published by Activision, then picked up by Atari after Activision merged with Vivendi and dropped it.

I wouldn't give them full credit for Brutal Legend either. It was another title Activision was publishing then dropped, and it was released less than a year after EA picked it up. Odds are Activision had already footed most of the development bill on that one, and betting on a mostly finished game made by Tim Schafer is hardly a risk. No, it didn't sell that well, but I'd be surprised if EA didn't turn an easy profit just the same.

As for the Saboteur, yes, it was a new IP, but developing an open world stealth action game, while a risk financially given they're expensive, was still a case of EA betting on something which was popular at the time, and remains popular to this day. That it didn't do well isn't proof that EA are risk takers. If anything, it may be the opposite. Besides that, up until the point Pandemic was well liked by their fans and critics, and had a reasonably good track record.

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.

I'm not going to argue the point that there are examples of games and series which didn't go to shit after EA acquired the developer. I'm sure there are plenty of examples on each side of the argument. I dislike the idea of using critic scores, particularly metacritic, to prove the point though. Their averaging system is laughably bad, and it's quite well known that many major game news sites are so reliant on ads to stay in the black that their reviews aren't very objective to say the least.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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.

You do realize that as a corporation that is traded publicly they are legally obligated to make as much money as possible right? EA being only interested in money is their job. They don't get a choice as a corporation. Blame American market laws for that one. An incorporated video game company does things a lot differently than a non incorporated game. Any video game company with "Inc" or "Co" after its name is just as guilty of looking purely for the money. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Take-Two, Activision, Sega, THQ, and Capcom have shut down almost as many of their studios as EA in the exact same fashion for the exact same reason.

To bolster @thebobmaster 's point, The hate that EA gets is kind of childish considering they don't even have the most defunct studio "kills" under their belt. That title goes to THQ.

 

[Yopaz]

You're built too low, that one flew right over you.

The point isn't how fast wikipedia corrects errors, the point is that using a mutable source like wikipedia OVER an immutable(to the general public, anyway) source like a dictionary, when debating the meaning of words(i.e. the reason that dictionaries exist), is asinine. If you're going to debate the philosophical meaning of something like evil, well, once again, wiki is pretty much terrible for that, when you have a whole internet at your fingers.

Yes, I use a source that gives a detailed description of the meaning of a word than a source that tries to define a word using as few words as possible rather than debate the origin, the use in fiction, religion and media.

I also use my text books that explain a subject when I study for exams rather than the dictionary.

So you make my statements invalid because I use a source that is based on numerous sources rather than a single source (one of them being Oxford University)?

The dictionary defines words Wikipedia explains it. We also established that errors get corrected so it doesn't lack credibility as you state which I believe was your point to begin with is that not so?

Honestly though, I am done here. EA is not evil, moving on, I don't care.

 

[Ledan]

Valid points. I still don't like them, because they are a massive corporation. There is a reason that they are often not well liked. Those reasons may be vital to them being corporations, but people don't like them anyways.
What you've proven is that EA is a corporation, and not an especially evil one. You haven't proven that corporations aren't evil, or that EA isn't an evil corporation.

 

[Thoric485]

Again, what happened to Pandemic is not very good, and I'll admit it. But there is nothing evil about it. Unethical, perhaps. But not evil. Pandemic is a victim, but it's not like their last two games sold well. Pandemic would have survived if they had made EA money. They didn't. And while part of that is due to EA pushing games out fast...I just don't see how Pandemic is not at fault at all for failing to meet expectations, while EA is totally at fault.

Nuh-uh. There is not a shadow of a doubt that Pandemic was only sold to EA, and consequently dissolved just to line Riccitiello's pockets.

First off, the three titles Pandemic released under EA total 5 million sales (that's $125+ million in profits). Which is better than some years BioWare have had, and Pandemic were a quarter of their size.

Secondly, EA have stated themselves [www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701123/ea-says-pandemic-closed-because-it-was-too-expensive-not-bad-games/] the reason for the closure was not low sales, but the high costs of keeping a studio open in California (something you'd think as an owner of Pandemic, Riccitiello would know).

And thirdly, they didn't even wait to see the fucking sales before they cut them down. Their first office was closed mere weeks after LOTR: Conquest released, and their other one - before Saboteur even hit the fucking shelves.

They cannibalized a good studio, deprived over 200 people of their jobs, just so Riccitiello could get a bigger commission and EA could slap the BioWare name on a piece of shit Star Wars-themed WoW clone that went F2P in less than a year.

It's disguisting.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Again, what happened to Pandemic is not very good, and I'll admit it. But there is nothing evil about it. Unethical, perhaps. But not evil. Pandemic is a victim, but it's not like their last two games sold well. Pandemic would have survived if they had made EA money. They didn't. And while part of that is due to EA pushing games out fast...I just don't see how Pandemic is not at fault at all for failing to meet expectations, while EA is totally at fault.

Nuh-uh. There is not a shadow of a doubt that Pandemic was only sold to EA, and consequently dissolved just to line Riccitiello's pockets.

First off, the three titles Pandemic released under EA total 5 million sales (that's $125+ million in profits). Which is better than some years BioWare have had, and Pandemic were a quarter of their size.

Secondly, EA have stated themselves [www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701123/ea-says-pandemic-closed-because-it-was-too-expensive-not-bad-games/] the reason for the closure was not low sales, but the high costs of keeping a studio open in California (something you'd think as an owner of Pandemic, Riccitiello would know).

And thirdly, they didn't even wait to see the fucking sales before they cut them down. Their first office was closed mere weeks after LOTR: Conquest released, and their other one - before Saboteur even hit the fucking shelves.

They cannibalized a good studio, deprived over 200 people of their jobs, just so Riccitiello could get a bigger commission and EA could slap the BioWare name on a piece of shit Star Wars-themed WoW clone that went F2P in less than a year.

It's disguisting.

Interesting. If it is true that the cost of the studio in California was too high, then it just shows a lack of foresight. If not...then a lawsuit for wrongful termination is in order. Thank you for educating me, and I'm not being sarcastic.

But again, I want to point out that the Bioware name has been "slapped on" more than just The Old Republic. That, and the game wasn't a "piece of shit". It lacks end-game content, which is why it failed, but the game itself is well made, and Bioware has been open that most of the story was taken from the planned (and cancelled) KOTOR III. So story issues? That's Bioware, yet EA gets blamed for it.

 

[Lunar Templar]

the 'studio closing thing' (most of which i'd barely heard of btw) doesn't bother me so much, and truthfully 'i don't hate them', mostly cause i don't buy there games. they almost never make something i like so i don't deal with they're bullshit.

however ...

when i hear something like 'we're gonna charge for ammo' or 'X game needs to sell some ridiculous number it has no chance of hitting to stay viable' or the latest stupid thing like 'all out games are gonna be online from now on', i find very little reason to like them. course that's not counting my natural disdain of Madden copy/pastes they have the nerve to charge full price for, or the copy/paste that is Call of Modern Battlefield 15.

also, Mc Donald's isn't evil, they just suck at making burgers

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

the 'studio closing thing' (most of which i'd barely heard of btw) doesn't bother me so much, and truthfully 'i don't hate them', mostly cause i don't buy there games. they almost never make something i like so i don't deal with they're bullshit.

however ...

when i hear something like 'we're gonna charge for ammo' or 'X game needs to sell some ridiculous number it has no chance of hitting to stay viable' or the latest stupid thing like 'all out games are gonna be online from now on', i find very little reason to like them. course that's not counting my natural disdain of Madden copy/pastes they have the nerve to charge full price for, or the copy/paste that is Call of Modern Battlefield 15.

also, Mc Donald's isn't evil, they just suck at making burgers

A lot of what gets said, however, is taken out of context by news articles. Take the "All our games are going to be online from now on." Yes, that is what was basically said. But the implication that there would no longer be any single player games was made by the press. The actual statement? "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365." That isn't saying there won't be single player games ever again. It's saying that EA's games have been, and will continue to, include online elements.

Their PR needs work, but it isn't easy when their words are being twisted or quotemined for maximum outrage effect.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I am getting really tired of your personal attack now. I am not dragging anyone one down

The Quote does NOT represent

So what I'm saying is, when you have a reputation for eating quality single player games and shitting out low-budget free-to-play or multiplayer garbage so you can monetize everything and control gamers, you may want to avoid bragging about never making single player games.

It does not say any of these thing. You Drew this from
"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365"
He doesn't brag about never making single player games. You ran with that. Not only that you decided to force it into a setting to make it seem as dammign as possible.

I am tired off your bullshit about me dragging you down when you have used the last 3 posts insinuation either paranoid or a cooperate whiteknight. Now I have sat here and just accepted it while you went more and more for me when I try to point it back to this. It may be my fault for misunderstanding you, but I wont take fault for you swing left and right with the ad hominums. I am not the one dragging this down.

I know how you feel, I'm getting tired of being called a liar and talking about things that have nothing to do with me.

Uh, yea, that's exactly what the quote says. At least we're not talking about some article I didn't write, though. It is very obvious from the context of the post you quoted that I am making distinctions between what he literally said, what he intended to say, and what people are likely to interpret. Distinctions you have twisted all around to conform to this narrative where I'm a liar and other people lying has something to do with me. The other guy got it. Gibeau may not have intended it to come off that way, which is why I am calling it a gaffe. He said one thing and meant another and people interpreted yet another. I think that's the source of the contradiction you believe you have discovered, and why you feel the goalposts have moved.

Another way of saying "force it into a setting to make it seem as dammign as possible" is "consider context". So it's exactly like I said, what you're objecting to is my considering this quote within the context of EA's patterns of behavior.

You seem to have this big canned argument about how people and websites lie about EA. If that's not so then I don't know where it's all coming from or why you brought it up to me. You have thrown this argument at me, called me a liar, complained about things that have nothing to do with me, and attributed arguments to me which are not mine. I have not made ad hominems, that word doesn't just mean saying something dickish. You, on the other hand, have attempted to dismiss my argument on the basis that I don't like EA, so don't tell me about ad hominems. You have not sat back and accepted anything, you came out swinging right from the start. If you think you can call someone a liar and then go on the defensive I don't expect you and I to get along very well. But if you'd like to reset the aggression meter back to zero that would suit me fine.

I didn't mean you were dragging things down, as in, your arguments are just bad arguments. I mean you are dragging me into a fight that has nothing to do with me that I do not wish to participate in.

 

[Britisheagle]

I agree with this! And judging by some of the comments we are not alone.

The main point for me is the fact EA is a company and, as such, needs to be profitable. Sure some of their tactics are a bit harsh but they get the job done and have helped release some cracking titles in their time.

Also they seem to try and make DLC, an evil that seems to be consuming this generation, worth having and good value for money in terms of what you get especially compared to competitors.

 

[Agayek]

Don't worry, you're not the only person who just cannot get into KOTOR the way some folks seem to. I've tried, time and time again to play my way through both games and I...just...can't. They just don't grab me for some reason. I can't quite put my finger on it, but KOTOR just doesn't engage me as a player and I find myself gritting my teeth at the tedious business of running back and forth through the same corridors and elevator rides. At least the ME series, whilst retaining these aspects, managed to provide me with a more engaging story to follow.

Really, I can't quantify what exactly it was about KOTOR that put me off of it. It just seems to fall flat for me. It's just one of those things.

The worst part is, I adore KOTOR1. I had none of the same problems with the original, but for whatever reason I just can't get into the sequel. It makes no sense, even to me, but there you go.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Evil is such a strong word...
I'd go with despicable, deplorable, shady, narrow minded, stupid, heartless, soulless, money grubbing, and tyrannical.

But Evil only has 4 letters in it so it's easier to type in threads like this. and it's the broader umbrella description that covers all of the things that they are, so you can see why people make that generalization.

 

[ElPatron]

"They are not evil because they are after money" arguments? That's like saying "everyone" hated ME3's ending because the it was sad.

ITT: Apologists don't even know what EA is hated for, probably read IGN's article.

Valve is not sending all it's profits to Africa and they are loved by gamers. You get money by having a good product and nice business practices, not by being an asshole. The latter gives you quick buck, but no long term profit.

see Dead Space

Dead Space 3 "needs a broader audience". They don't want the risk associated with DS anymore.

Army of Two

A shooter. How adventurous.

I don't mind that they've created Project Ten Dollar to try to re-coup costs.

Call it re-coup costs. I call it something else.

I don't mind that they have chosen to go up against Valve with Origin.

I don't either, but the Origin shenanigans really have to give EA a bad image since it's inception.

And calling people morons isn't actually that nice.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I proved where they cut the quote and who did it. Do I have to do that again? Do I have to link to a dictionary definition of quoteminging?

They did so in order to force the message you now still stand by with they full quote.

We have different reading comprehension. You insist that quote represent that point then we will never see eye to eye. It is pretty clear he isn't bragging about never making singleplayer games, because isn't what he is saying. I am sorry no. You are plain old wrong.

Again I never said you you wrote the articles (I also pointed that out already, but I dont want to quote you myself). I said you are carrying on with their message. Message they had to cut the quote in order to make it fit their narrative. I am getting tired of this.

Fact:
That quote was cut to fit a false narrative. In its full form the narrative doesn't fit. Your narrative doesn't fit. Get over it.

OH. MY. GOD. I DON'T CARE IF YOU PROVE THE ESCAPIST TOOK THE LINDBERGH BABY. I DON'T CARE, I DON'T CARE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

I am not wrong about anything. His statement was badly worded. If the escapist said the exact same thing about Gibeau as he said about himself in a similar context you would be screaming "bloody murder!" and "yellow journalism!" and you know it. It's badly worded in a way that makes EA and Gibeau look bad.

Plus, when you consider the context of EA's pattern of behavior... You see the literal meaning of a statement or even the writer's intentions for that statement don't always represent the entirety of it's significance. Get over that whydoncha.

Okay, so you brought up those articles to say I'm carrying on their message. It's actually kind of true, just not in the way you mean. But even if you're right, that's not an argument for anything. And I can't figure out why you keep bringing it up. I'm totally baffled. What do you want me to say in response? What do you expect me to say? I don't give a fuck if the escapist mined a quote to fit a false narrative. That's your battle, go fight it somewhere else. It's like you were expecting me to defend them, and when I didn't, you were totally confounded. So now you're just doing it over and over and over again. I DON'T CARE, I DON'T CARE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

RIP BioWare.

I think that is just wishful type thinking that comes from people that don't like EA and want something more to add to their complaints about EA.

BioWare is nowhere near dead. In fact, BioWare has only got stronger since EA acquired them.

But of course I'm one of the people that thinks that everything that came after DA: Origins is much better than DA: Origins and anything that came before DA:O except maybe KotOR, but KotOR, to me, hasn't aged well.

I love how BioWare, after DA:O, decided to actually somewhat change things up with each new game. The Mass Effect series would have been stale to me and I wouldn't have played them all the way through if they had all been exactly like the first ME game. I would have canceled my pre-order of DA2 if I had found out it was going be similar to DA:O.

The only reason I pre-ordered DA2 is because it looked awesome. Got DA:O just before hand to make sure I was familiar with the universe before DA2 came out, but was barely able to play much of DA:O(20 to 25 hours), before I had to just stop and hope DA2 was better(which to me it was far superior) because there where so many things I found problems with in DA:O, I just couldn't keep playing the first game because it felt unplayable with the problems.