Too bad some other sites out that isn't directly related to video games speaks otherwise. Hell their users will seemingly vehemently defend EA to the bitter end under the guise of "Worse companies deserve it"Boogie Knight said:
EA Really Doesn't Want to be The Worst Company In America
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
That's your opinion, and my opinion is that all the games I've played both before and after the acquisition of the company have been either the same or better. I'm not saying either of our opinions is correct or incorrect, what I am trying to show is the subjective nature of video games and that it is unfair to assume that the gaming experience you had with the game is the games fault or your own bias.RatherDull said:
"developer goes to shit almost immediately after getting acquired by EA. And how EA published products tend to be bullshit"
I'm going to take the two big ones that normally come up and say that you are referring to Maxis and Bioware. Maxis' greatest strength was Will Wright, when he left the company wasn't the same. That doesn't mean the company got worse, it simply means the company changed, new people bring new ideas. Same can be said for Bioware, new people bring new ideas, and fans of the old people will either gel with the new ideas or be immediately repelled. Either way it does not mean the quality went down or up, it was simply new ideas and styles that some like and others dislike.
Yes they are involved in the making of the game, yes they will backbench a single player game in favour of a sequel/multiplayer game, and yes they would have their own people installed in developers, that's what a big successful business does. As a big company they aren't able to take huge risks, they have to play it safe, that means making the game appeal to a large enough audience is their number 1 goal. That's not a bad thing, DRM is, and I agree that they're idiots for using it and making a terrible excuse, but other than that (and DA2) all the hate thrown EA's way seems more a decision they would leave to the developer such as a games story line. I'm not saying EA is a golden egg, they have flaws, but they are not deliberately looking at their audience and flipping us off (Like that Microsoft dude did about the next Xbox being always online).Desert Punk said:
I agree their bottom line is to make a game appeal to a large enough audience but you have the first part backwards. As a big company they should be taking risks. They have the capital and the resources to push the envelope, test new ideas and inject life into the gaming industry. If it flops they now know what not to do for all future games and they can absorb the loss.Desert Punk said:
Instead EA, as a publisher, is choking off the creative aspect of the games industry in favor of tired, reused series or games that are pushed out as quickly as possible to make money. People may try to push blame on the developer for screwing up a certain aspect of a game but I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that it is because EA had a say in how their timeline was set.
EA needs to change the way it views the gaming industry and its consumers. If it doesnt, then in the near future it might find itself in the red as indie devs start pushing out amazing product(hopefully, but if the game bombs at least we know who to blame
)and show the rest of the gaming industry you dont need a publisher to make a great game.
Part of their modus operandi (and this by no means unique to EA) is in how they broaden their appeal.Kefo said:
If we were to take a typical EA game and break it down piece-wise, I'd bet anything that Marketing would be the largest budget by far. Following that, would be Graphical and Audio fidelity (with emphasis on the "epic" or "cinematic" angle).
Gameplay (which is almost certainly derivative) and then story would be dead last.
It's basically the "Michael Bay" approach, to mainstream appeal, only for video games...and with less overt racism.
But just between the cinematic visuals and marketing (and now, maybe dedicated servers), they've already blown all their money and there's nothing left for "risk", especially if they want to release the game in a "timely" manner.
"Risk" at that point is deciding which parts of the game to chop up and sell piecemeal as DLC, and which parts to retain in the "core" game.
You'd be earning another paycheck if anyone took that bet for sure.
EA has demonstrated repeatedly that they rush games. Why? Because they love annual titles like their (illegally monopolized) sports line or "globular" games like The Sims, and they think that every game they produce should fit that mold.
But that only works for games of an iterative nature; they aren't really creating anything new with FIFA or Madden since the rules of soccer and football don't change (much). Gaming is a largely creative medium, and those iterative titles are by far the EXCEPTION and not the norm.
And yet, EA keeps lashing the whip, pushing for quicker and quicker release schedules like a giant game-factory: Producing disposable, "less-filling" largely derivative works built on marketing hype first, and substance last.
What they cannot clone, they try to possess, and when what they possess eventually fails to fit their predefined mold, they strip bare and discard.
EA cannot change, because EA doesn't want to change.EA needs to change the way it views the gaming industry and its consumers. If it doesnt, then in the near future it might find itself in the red as indie devs start pushing out amazing product(hopefully, but if the game bombs at least we know who to blame
EA has spent more than a decade running largely the same business model, and it has worked because in that time the mainstream market was booming; reaching new landmarks as technology grew.
It is far easier to wow people with a derivative work featuring newer, shinier tech than it is to create an original and fun game. I'd be so bold as to state that EA built its entire company on exploitation, derivative works and ethically-questionable business practices.
But now that tech has plateaued in their primary market (consoles) they're scared and confused. They throw tantrums when their bone-headed schemes and corner-cutting measures blow up in their faces. Do you think EA would honestly give a shit about this Golden Poo business if they were actually dominating the market? Why would they? They'd be above such petty things.
They are so stubborn, so averse to change, that they have adopted an even more anti-consumer stance because they're trying to make the market change to suit THEM rather than adapting to meet the demands of the market. (this, I think, is the real reason Origin exists)
Yet, in spite of all the evidence, all their failures, they still haven't quite grasped that is not how the market system and competition works.
The best summary I can provide, is that EA acts like a company who thinks they have a monopoly, even when they don't.
Yeah, I don't agree with their lying, and at least the masses of fury didn't dive on EA like a tsunami before the games release so they at least gave EA a slimmer of chance before pulling out the crowbars and knives. I just think that too many people take to the bandwagon of bashing EA just because they're a big company.Desert Punk said:
Big companies are TERRIFIED of taking risks, and when you see games like COD getting millions of dollars for relatively simple mechanics, gamers screaming for sequels, and the console generation being in it's final days you can see why EA is playing it safe. Why innovate when a majority of people are diving into old games. As for a game flopping, it's not going to be a simple, "oh well, lets let the other games make up for it's loss" it's going to mean that EA would have even less reason to innovate. Look at Mirror's Edge, great game, but fuck all people bought it so now EA has put it's sequel in the backburner because in the end money is their language.Kefo said:I agree their bottom line is to make a game appeal to a large enough audience but you have the first part backwards. As a big company they should be taking risks. They have the capital and the resources to push the envelope, test new ideas and inject life into the gaming industry. If it flops they now know what not to do for all future games and they can absorb the loss.
Instead EA, as a publisher, is choking off the creative aspect of the games industry in favor of tired, reused series or games that are pushed out as quickly as possible to make money. People may try to push blame on the developer for screwing up a certain aspect of a game but I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that it is because EA had a say in how their timeline was set.
EA needs to change the way it views the gaming industry and its consumers. If it doesnt, then in the near future it might find itself in the red as indie devs start pushing out amazing product(hopefully, but if the game bombs at least we know who to blame
EA is not choking the innovation of the game industry. There are many publishers who are doing WAY worse than EA in that sense. Look at Activision and COD, Nintendo and Mario, Capcom and Resident Evil 6 (I didn't mind RE6 TBH). As for innovation I'd say look at Ubisoft (Watch Dogs), Gearbox (Borderlands) and Bethesda (they published Dishonoured if I remember correctly). As for your paycheck I would say that's a smart bet, because it makes sense for EA to want the game to be finished in 2-3 years when you look at games such as Duke Nukem Forever and Aliens Colonial Marines. 15 years of development is a terrible sign as it means 1 of 2 things, the developers are lazy or too many ideas and styles are being shoved into one game making it unable to fully grasp onto anything thus making the game loose it's identity. I's say EA is doing okay seeing as how Mass Effect 3's release date was extended and Dragon Age 3 is set to come out next year (4 years after 2).
EA will never find themselves in the red because they cater for the mainstream. Yes Indie developers can make great games, but have you been on the Xbox Live Indie game market? 90% of them are terrible. Sometimes money does become a factor in whether or not a game is good or great. Also, when it comes down to getting a good paycheck, or making a good game, most people would take the paycheck because people need to eat.
But they are.bug_of_war said:
Google search for some chats with EA's client support.
Things like this.
Activision may release rehashes and bad games. That doesn't make them a bad company (no pun intended). It's the same with Nintendo, Capcom and many others. EA not only did that (Sims 3 yearly installments, which supposedly will happen with SimCity too), but they also made very, very bad decisions AND tried to defend them.
CDPR just said that they won't put DRM in their games. Their games, too, don't try to cater to the LGBT community. They created GOG. And they still sell.
There are many publishers who are doing WAY better than EA.
You don't need to be an asshole to the consumers to be successful.
(and for the record, yes, I know about CDPR "blackmailing" consumers who pirated their games -and some who didn't-, but they ended up taking it back. They recognized their mistake)
If only I kept the E-mails where in which it took a month for Ubisoft to help me prove to Valve that my copy of Ghost Recon was faulty and not working at all, then I could show you how helpful Valve can be and how kind they can be. You think that picture is EA giving their consumers the finger? Here's the gist of what happened with Valve,wAriot said:But they are.
Google search for some chats with EA's client support.
Things like this.
Activision may release rehashes and bad games. That doesn't make them a bad company (no pun intended). It's the same with Nintendo, Capcom and many others. EA not only did that (Sims 3 yearly installments, which supposedly will happen with SimCity too), but they also made very, very bad decisions AND tried to defend them.
CDPR just said that they won't put DRM in their games. Their games, too, don't try to cater to the LGBT community. They created GOG. And they still sell.
There are many publishers who are doing WAY better than EA.
You don't need to be an asshole to the consumers to be successful.
(and for the record, yes, I know about CDPR "blackmailing" consumers who pirated their games -and some who didn't-, but they ended up taking it back. They recognized their mistake)
"Hey Valve, I'm having troubles with my game"
"Try this"
"That didn't work, anymore suggestions?"
"This isn't our business, talk to Ubisoft"
"Ubisoft says they can't find the solution"
"So what do you expect us to do?"
"I was hoping for a refund"
"We don't give out refunds"
"Can I trade it for a different game?"
"No, unless you can prove beyond a doubt to us that the game is faulty and it's not your hardware"
"*Tags Ubisoft email to Valve*"
"Fine, we will let choose a new game of similar pricing, but this is the only time we will do this"
Now of course this isn't word for word, but this is the general attitude I got from Valve.
I never said Activision/Nintendo/Capcom were bad, I was simply showing how different companies do similar things EA does only on a larger scale. This does not make them bad, it doesn't make them good, they are simply marketing towards their audience.
"I know about CDPR "blackmailing" consumers who pirated their games -and some who didn't-, but they ended up taking it back. They recognized their mistake)", this annoys me, you are willing to forgive one company but not another. EA shouldn't have to apologise for using DRM, it's a piece of crap but as a company they have every right to put DRM in their games. They need to learn to be more humble, I agree, but when you're being knocked for every single move you make you tend to start believing that the general consumer is the asshole. That's wrong, yes, but it does tell us that maybe we should lighten up a little as a community. I'm not saying let what just happened with Sin City go, that was bad, but some of the things I've heard said about them in the past really isn't something that deserves knocking.
Indeed, Valve has had several problems because they haven't been giving refunds.
You know why they do this? Because it's their policy. It's how they work.
Now, I'm not saying that THAT is a good thing, nor am I defending them. It's a bad policy. But they have done a lot of good things and, overall, it's a consumer-friendly company.
EA is not. They refuse to give you refunds (from time to time they will, though, just like Valve), they have a piss-poor client support, they accuse the consumers when their games don't have the success they hoped, etceteras etceteras. There isn't anything I can add here that hasn't been said already in this thread.
Did EA apologize for anything they have done? Ever? Not only they didn't but they ACCUSED THE CONSUMER of being homophobes, gay-hating bigots. Do they have the right to put DRM in all their games? Yes, they do. But they shouldn't be surprised when people doesn't buy their games because of it.
Do they have the right to destroy what could have been the Star Wars of video games? Yes, they do. It's their game, after all. But they shouldn't be surprised when people hates them for it.
Should we lighten up as a community? No. Not in a million years. Without criticism, the companies would just do whatever they damn well pleased. And don't even come with that "speak with your wallet" bull (in case you were going to), because even if you KNOW what is bad and what isn't, there is always a kid out there that will buy their game, just because he doesn't know better.
You know why they do this? Because it's their policy. It's how they work.
Now, I'm not saying that THAT is a good thing, nor am I defending them. It's a bad policy. But they have done a lot of good things and, overall, it's a consumer-friendly company.
EA is not. They refuse to give you refunds (from time to time they will, though, just like Valve), they have a piss-poor client support, they accuse the consumers when their games don't have the success they hoped, etceteras etceteras. There isn't anything I can add here that hasn't been said already in this thread.
CDPR made a mistake. They took it back. So did many other companies with their own mistakes (who hasn't made one). Again, overall, they are a consumer-friendly company (in my opinion, one of the greatest).bug_of_war said:
Did EA apologize for anything they have done? Ever? Not only they didn't but they ACCUSED THE CONSUMER of being homophobes, gay-hating bigots. Do they have the right to put DRM in all their games? Yes, they do. But they shouldn't be surprised when people doesn't buy their games because of it.
Do they have the right to destroy what could have been the Star Wars of video games? Yes, they do. It's their game, after all. But they shouldn't be surprised when people hates them for it.
Should we lighten up as a community? No. Not in a million years. Without criticism, the companies would just do whatever they damn well pleased. And don't even come with that "speak with your wallet" bull (in case you were going to), because even if you KNOW what is bad and what isn't, there is always a kid out there that will buy their game, just because he doesn't know better.
It's not an MMO:rapidoud said:
1. Massively: It does not have the capability to play with a massive number of players (16 is not large.) most FPS multiplayers have more people connected, even most RTSs have maps allowing at least 8 people at a time to play. Also the links that you have to the other players is extremely tenuous, apparently realistically you can only 'interact' with 4 people in a region, and if you want to send something to someone on the region who isn't one of those 4 people you have to create a congaline of transactions sending it from one player to another before it finally reaches the person it's supposed to, it's like someone turned six degrees of Kevin Bacon into a minigame.
2. Multiplayer: It's technically not even a multiplayer: because you do not directly interact with any other players. What you can do is see their creations which are updated every 20 minutes and try to send them transactions for goods/services, Correct me if I am wrong but apparently due to the nature of the connection you can only send one transaction at a time and cannot set up a service line (eg. buying monthly electricity from someone, or setting a monthly garbage collection from another region: the transaction must be repeated every single time.) Not to mention the huge bugs in the transaction list where your transactions wouldn't deliver, so you'd lose a pile of resources you were trying to send to another city, or they'd send you a pile of resources and you'd never recieve them.
3. Online: There are exactly 2 lines of code that connect Simcity to the servers. That. Is. It. 2 lines: http://www.pixelenemy.com/simcity-mod-two-lines-of-code-to-play-offline/
The game runs all it's calculations on your computer, the only thing necessary to have online is the 20 minute snapshots and the savegames (Savegames don't need a server connection to function, so the only necessity is the snapshot.). There is no reason on this earth that Simcity required an always online connection if a person wanted to create their own city and play by themselves. Online simply isn't necessary for that.
No they weren't, Bioware were one of the first companies to have LGBT in a game, EA bought Bioware and let them continue, that doesn't count.rapidoud said:
They aren't getting better. EA do crap stuff all the time. They turned Command and Conquer into a F2P MMO after ripping the ass out of it in Tiberium Twilight and wondering why no one bought that game. They took Bioware: a company famous for high quality RPGs and told them to make an MMO, they announced that they were forcing multiplayer capabilities into all of their games, they continue to push micro-transactions in their full price AAA games, including the gamble-tastic Mass Effect 3 random drop microtransaction which is so insidiously immoral I'm surprised it's legal. They cancelled Dead Space 3 after it failed to reach 5 million sales, which everyone knew it would fail.rapidoud said:
They keep their obnoxious advertisers, their offensive marketers, their out of touch executives, their business ideals of shafting the customer, their short deadlines and corporate meddling, their demand for DLC, multiplayer, DRM, and microtransactions in all their games while refusing to cut the initial cost of their games. These are the problems with the company and they still do ALL THESE THINGS.
So no, they aren't getting better.
Yes, there are worse companies out in America today, EA cannot compare with those that directly pollute the environment, or harm their customers and the general public with malpractice and greed. They probably shouldn't win the worst company of the year, however, I still believe they are an insulting disgrace of a company who see their customers as nothing more than ungrateful wallets to be exploited as much as possible as fast as they can.rapidoud said:
They gave out some free games, that was a nice gesture, but it doesn't make up for the absolute cock-up that was the Simcity release. They only made that decision after the internet exploded with rage and it started to affect their sales, (Amazon taking the game down etc.) It wasn't out of the kindness of their heart, it was damage control, and it should be noted they gave a very limited choice of a few older games whose marketable audience had all already purchased the game.
There are over a dozen studios that EA have closed, it's true some had expenses that outweighed their income, but most were forced into this position by EA themselves (Origin Studios for example, let itself be bought by EA because it was in financial difficulty. It was in financial difficulty partially because EA put it there with bogus lawsuits and corporate bullying so they would sell themselves to EA.
Other studios were profitable when sold to EA, but corporate meddling from EA killed their games: Westwood were sold to EA when they were profitable, they were famous for some revolutionary RTS games. The first thing EA did was make them produce a First Person Shooter that they wanted to compete and surpass Halo. Because that's totally going to work.)
Other studios were never given a chance: Pandemic were bought along with Bioware in 2008. They lasted less than a year, produced only one game for EA, had another 3 in production and EA canned the studio a year and a month later.
Oh, and EA have twice made statements about how they made mistakes and were responsible for the downfall of many of the studios that they shut down, both times they promised change, just like this statement does here.
Don't fall for it this time, the rhetoric of this statement shows they haven't learned anything.
Hm, let me point out that EA is the worst company principally because they do horrible things purposely. Mentioned companies, say responsible for oil leaks did not made those on purpose, laughing and saying "yes, we will spill that oil to screw the ecology because we're mad evil bastards!". No, they didn't.
EA purposely and knowing full exact implications used online passes, always-on DRM etc. EA is the worst because they purposely employ practices that directly harm not just their consumers, but themselves and their employees too. While less horrible companies only hurt their customer. Not only that, EA keeps ruining parts of their own company in exact same way many times in a row.
Also, don't they get that it's a competition of all companies, so one doesn't just automatically worse or better if it deals with money, movies, videogames or forage.
Name another company that:
- rips off their consumers
- employ practices that hurt their sales/profit
- purposely misuse their assets, which leads to lost profit and fired employees
- keeps repeating all of the above again and again, even when evidence that it will hurt both company and consumer is obvious
Yea, worst. Sure, there's a number of companies that do first thing here, but other 3?
EA purposely and knowing full exact implications used online passes, always-on DRM etc. EA is the worst because they purposely employ practices that directly harm not just their consumers, but themselves and their employees too. While less horrible companies only hurt their customer. Not only that, EA keeps ruining parts of their own company in exact same way many times in a row.
Also, don't they get that it's a competition of all companies, so one doesn't just automatically worse or better if it deals with money, movies, videogames or forage.
Name another company that:
- rips off their consumers
- employ practices that hurt their sales/profit
- purposely misuse their assets, which leads to lost profit and fired employees
- keeps repeating all of the above again and again, even when evidence that it will hurt both company and consumer is obvious
Yea, worst. Sure, there's a number of companies that do first thing here, but other 3?
TL;DR
Doesn't matter what he says, they'll always fail at making quality games and always succeed at dropping fascinating games that captivate the nation like bags of hammers at the first sign of profit while simultaneously ensuring they snare the I.P. and stuff it into a dirty gym sock drawer so no other developers can ever share the wondrous experience with audiences ever again.
F*ck you, EA. F*ck you and everything you stand for.
Sincerely,
Gamers Everywhere
Doesn't matter what he says, they'll always fail at making quality games and always succeed at dropping fascinating games that captivate the nation like bags of hammers at the first sign of profit while simultaneously ensuring they snare the I.P. and stuff it into a dirty gym sock drawer so no other developers can ever share the wondrous experience with audiences ever again.
F*ck you, EA. F*ck you and everything you stand for.
Sincerely,
Gamers Everywhere
"We've seen mailing lists that direct people to vote for EA because they disagree with the choice of the cover athlete on Madden NFL. Yes, really...
In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT characters in our games. This week, we're seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America."
This is just evil. Really evil. Legitimate customers come to complain and EA twists it so that anyone that complains is anti-LGBT? This is really fucked up. How are people still giving them money while EA takes a stance like this? It's nuts!
In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT characters in our games. This week, we're seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America."
This is just evil. Really evil. Legitimate customers come to complain and EA twists it so that anyone that complains is anti-LGBT? This is really fucked up. How are people still giving them money while EA takes a stance like this? It's nuts!
This is what irritates me. You hate the company as much as is deserved, but you're still buying their products.Mylinkay Asdara said:
EA's constant ignorance of their customer's demands, terrible quality products and desperate bids to increase profits at the expense of consumer intelligence makes it a terrible company, and unfortunately the nature of their company means their customers are in constant communication with one another, which means they're going to win the voting here.
I've utterly had it with EA. As I've posted many times before, I simply won't do business with them.
I'll say it again, as much as I dislike EA I find it laughable that they'd be rated the worst company in America. I mean worst video game company maybe, but worst company in AMERICA??? I don't think so.
I will be buying one of their panoply of products. The one I'd like to finish for my own satisfaction. I'm not buying anything new from them until they get back into my good graces though, that's my middle ground between "boycott completely /rage" and "keep drinking the kool-aid."Sansha said: