Is anyone defending EA at this point?

[Something Amyss]

What baffles me about EA is that we consistently validate their behaviour with our purchases, then scream that they're doing things wrong.

Only when they deserve it.

Which is increasingly often.

Not because they're doing anything better, but because people are actually idiotic enough to vote them "Worst Company in America" over, say, the Bank of America. That's just headdeskworthy.

I don't see that as defense so much as common sense.

Yet people promptly tell me to "stop defending EA".

Common sense? What's that?

You have a point. Common sense needs a new name. Rare sense, maybe.

But yeah, EA may kinda suck, but worse than the banks who nearly crashed America?

 

[Vigormortis]

Here's a better example of a game that is not only highly regarded, but would not exist if EA, who owned the rights to it, didn't approach the company making the at-the-time spiritual successor to a cult hit with an offer to publish the game under the condition that the game was renamed to be part of the series, rather than just be a spiritual successor.

Spoiler: What game?

Cue people telling me it doesn't count because it is old.

It does count. I doubt many would refute that.

However, the EA of that time is NOT like the EA of today. Times change, and EA changed with them. For the worse. One doesn't even have to base that assessment off of opinion, their stock value speaks for itself.

That's often the thing many of the EA apologists seem to not realize, or actively ignore. They keep viewing EA through nostalgia glasses, recalling a bygone age of gaming wherein EA was a trend setter, an innovator, a trail blazer.

That's not the EA of today. Not even close. And the more we try to excuse the bullshit EA keeps throwing at us, the worse it's going to get.

I used to be a fan of EA. I loved their penchant for funding and producing some amazing, inspired projects. For preferring innovation and fresh ideas instead of homogenization and meeting the investors bottom-line. And, I'm all for giving props to EA for the good things they do now-a-days; as few and far between as those moments are. But, to excuse them of all fault in their bad actions and decisions is not only ridiculous it's also detrimental. To them, their subsidiaries, and the industry as a whole.

I, for one, won't support it. Nor them. That's why the last EA branded title I purchased was Battlefield 3. A purchase, I might add, I regret. And, from the looks of things, it's going to remain the last.

I sincerely hope that's NOT the case. I would love to see EA return to it's roots, so-to-speak, and move away from their destructive business model. I'm just not entirely convinced that they can.

What baffles me about EA is that we consistently validate their behaviour with our purchases, then scream that they're doing things wrong.

Not me. I may criticize their business practices, but I don't support them. Morally or monetarily.

Even so, I agree with you. It's painfully annoying, to me, to see people ***** about EA one minute, then go and buy their latest release.

Only when they deserve it.

Which is increasingly often.

Not because they're doing anything better, but because people are actually idiotic enough to vote them "Worst Company in America" over, say, the Bank of America. That's just headdeskworthy.

I'm not entirely sure they deserve to be defended. At least, no more than the people who blatantly lie and fabricate sensationalist non-truths about them.

However, the latter do deserve something. The liars should be called out on their nonsense.

What you're doing is just that. Calling out the liars. Something I've been trying to do myself on the matter. Against both the EA apologists AND the EA detractors.

Because, quite frankly, there's an awful lot of misinformation and exaggeration coming from both sides.

Which, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the negative effect EA is having on the industry today.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

snip-a-dee-doo-dah, snip-a-dee-ay

I agree with you, and I respect your decision. I am aware that EA has changed since then. And I'm not saying that their business practices are all that good, either. I enjoy their games still, however. I enjoyed ME3, I enjoyed DA2, and I'm currently enjoying TOR. They aren't without their flaws. I'll be the first to admit it, but I still find them fun.

You don't, and you don't buy their games any more. I respect that. It is, ultimately, each gamer's choice as to what they find fun, and what they want to support. The problem comes in when people attack other gamers for not liking the "right" games, or not supporting the "right" practices. I don't mind debates, as long as the parties aren't idiots about it. For example, I really enjoy DA2. I found the characters to be pretty good, and the story was an interesting twist, to me, with your character being more of a "right place, right time" guy/gal rather than "teh ultimate hero". However, I would be quite incorrect to claim that the environments don't repeat that much, or that the combat is quite a bit less complex than in DA2. I would also be wrong to claim that they made mages weaker and rogues stronger.

The problem comes in when people fail to realize that things like "good" and "bad" are mostly subjective. I mean, you won't find anyone claiming that Big Rigs is a good game (unironically, anyways). But unless the game is fundamentally broken like that, it's all down to personal taste. Until gamers can recognize that their opinions are not unquestionable, they will never grow to accept other opinions.

By the way, I do hold myself to the same standard. If someone questions me on something, I'll explain my side of the subject, if I am informed on it. What I don't do is make up stuff to make my side look better. If someone brings up evidence to contradict what I believe, then I will examine that evidence, and find out if it is reliable. In return, I expect others to do the research on something before using it as evidence. Unfortunately, most people fall under confirmation bias, and will put on blinders to what they believe, dismissing any data that disagrees with them as being "biased". I will admit that I am guilty of doing the same thing on occasion. Everyone has. However, the key is to recognize when you do it, and admit when you are mistaken. Sadly, far too many people don't take that step.

Also, sorry about the wall of text. I got a wee bit carried away.

 

[Sargonas42]

snip

Erm... according to Wikipedia EA's only role in Team Fortress 2 was porting the completed game to the PS3, and that didn't go all that smoothly...

Not quite, EA assisted with the console ports on both platforms for Orange Box as well as Portal 2. They also however lead all physical publishing efforts on both as well, for 360, PS3 and even PC. Valve is not in the business to do a physical goods operations chain and outsourced that as well to EA. Granted that has little to do with "development" but fact is they WERE the publisher in that small aspect.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I'll defend their games.

I mean, I will NEVER shut up about how much I like ME3.

But the company and their practices?

Yeah.........No..........

No. any who do defend EA do not exist.

Hi, I'm Sonic Doctor.

I'm defending EA in these matters.

Yes, but let's not forget you're that crazy guy who puts large signs out on his front lawn with comments raging against the government and talking about conspiracy theories.

 

[KelDG]

EA do some shitty things, but people treat them like monsters that can do no right and must never be forgiven.

They are monsters...... Never forget.....

My childhood developers, given the promise of better funding or forced majority buyouts . The demise of so many good franchises.

captcha : Speeding bullet..... you cruel b**tard.

 

[ThriKreen]

I just have to say Kreen, with all these EA threads popping up, I love seeing your responses. Always level headed and unbiased. I really need to keep them bookmarked, because I wanted to quote one earlier XD

Thanks. I try my best to demystify the dev process, but it only works if the person has an open ear towards wanting to understand it. Some just want to hear confirmation of their bias and reacting negatively if it's not what they think (which is often the case). I do what I can to give a balanced view and offer a big picture perspective, as a lot of people don't see the interconnected relationships for the game industry.

I mean, I too was quite surprised even when I went from gamer to modder, let alone becoming a professional. The choices one has to make even on a small scale mod for gameplay, as well as working on a team, each of our own preferences, work and play styles. I'm still proud of the work I did on WyvernCrown of Cormyr for NWN - you know, Premium Modules, a precursor to DLC! People kept clamoring for horses in NWN, spent the better part of a YEAR making a 3hr module and adding horses to it. And oh boy, had we known, we would have NOT bothered with it, it didn't really add much to the game and now we understood why it was never added in.

Now think about features when you have $20,000,000.00 on the budget, a deadline, and just spend half a year realizing something didn't work out. And realize all those "great ideas" people toss out on forums and such, might have already been tested out - and it wasn't that fun in practice. Theorizing in a vacuum is all fine and dandy when you're not actually offering anything more than time to type it out, but reality is when you actually implement it in context with all the other game systems, or let it loose on the player population who will seek to exploit and beat it. You know, "no plan survives contact with the enemy" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder#Moltke.27s_Theory_of_War].

Also, I agree with Kreen, most of the time people who vilify EA usually use bad facts. So many people still believe the servers are EA's fault, when Maxis is pulling all the blame for it. Also, the point of everyone trying to make 'Always Online' and 'Always Online DRM' the same thing. SimCity was built for online play, meaning its not DRM. Thats like saying WoW is only server based because its DRM. To anyone who thinks it is EA who made it always online, we -dont- know.

Yes, it's not like Assassin's Creed 2's DRM on the PC which all it does is phone home and cloud saves for a single-player game with no online component. SC has the region play, and like it or not, the game is designed with BOTH city and region play in mind. It's like playing Counter-Strike or TF2 but only ever playing offline, solo vs. bots. You're kind of missing the point. They focus on just the tree stump (DRM) and miss the forest (the other aspects offered with online).

And look at another perspective, Valve's DRM is non-intrusive right? But yet the TF2 item server requires you to be online to benefit. If you're in a tournament, like at a LAN party and there's no Internet connection (like @ PAX Prime 2010), you've just been nerfed if you relied on a particular weapon beyond the stock ones. Oops.

Not saying only offering one play mode would be something I would have done, though. I would have had SC offer solo, offline play in the guise of pick a city plot and play only on that, with no regions. And at least up the city plot size as well. And named and promoted it differently.

Ah, promoting it. I think that's the real problem with the whole snafu - a lot of PR people making exaggerated claims and the company trying to save face by not admitting to it, due to image. I think game companies need to get rid of that attitude, and not spend as much on their PR department as it seems many of them don't have a clue. Having a beta stress test, then limiting how many go on to garner a favourable environment for the press reviews? How about keeping it as an actual test and not letting PR have a say?

He's not really saying that though, it's quite ovious he's just using an analogy to explain the psychology behind why microtransactions are successful. And he's got a point. If you were to end up in that situation, lots of people would react exactly the way he's saying.

This so much. It irks me whenever I see someone link to that video claiming the whole "charging for bullets" line. Or any reference to other articles, then they have the nerve to accuse me of not understanding the thing in question, but when I ask what their interpretation is, I get no response back. Wat? Which makes me wonder what ELSE they've miscomprehended when it comes to, well, anything. Like they're basically looking or listening for keywords and ignoring the context as a whole.

I doubt I'd convince them, I just don't want others to get suckered into their distorted view of reality.

Like, for all the doom predictions, people keep saying Maxis will get shut down Real Soon Now, and they've been saying that for the past ... how many years now? 16?

 

[Something Amyss]

Not me. I may criticize their business practices, but I don't support them. Morally or monetarily.

Even so, I agree with you. It's painfully annoying, to me, to see people ***** about EA one minute, then go and buy their latest release.

While I don't actively boycott them, I don't support them either. I think I've bought like, two EA games in the last three or four years. I've steered clear of controversial titles in general, for the most part. The only company I could be said to have been actively boycotting was THQ, and they're gone, so....

I may still avoid anything Volition puts out if their new Saints Row title is as butchered as the last.

But as the gaming community, We really do support them as a whole. EA, Ubisoft, THQ, Activision. People complain with every big release. We knew this sort of thing was coming with EA. It almost always happens with big always-online games.

Unfortunately, we're too busy doing a Fry impression, screaming "shut up and take my money!"

 

[Vigormortis]

While I don't actively boycott them, I don't support them either. I think I've bought like, two EA games in the last three or four years. I've steered clear of controversial titles in general, for the most part. The only company I could be said to have been actively boycotting was THQ, and they're gone, so....

I may still avoid anything Volition puts out if their new Saints Row title is as butchered as the last.

But as the gaming community, We really do support them as a whole. EA, Ubisoft, THQ, Activision. People complain with every big release. We knew this sort of thing was coming with EA. It almost always happens with big always-online games.

Unfortunately, we're too busy doing a Fry impression, screaming "shut up and take my money!"

I think the fact that that meme is often a common response, with many gamers, to a games reveal or launch trailer, is quite telling. Especially when these same trailers reveal next to nothing about the product itself nor any other "extras" that might be tacked on top. (like, say, requiring a constant internet connection with SimCity)

The irony of the whole affair is, as a community we despise the "childish" image gamers are portrayed as amongst non-gamers, yet many of us do nothing but act childishly.

It's just depressing. Part of me fears another gaming industry crash. Another hopes for it.

 

[Vigormortis]

snipped for space

Nothing wrong with a rant, occasionally. As long as your not, you know, going full tilt into the "confrontation" zone.

But anyway, to address a point you brought up:

I didn't say I don't like some of the games produced under EAs banner. I'm quite fond of Dead Space, Battlefield (until 3), and others. However, given their current business practices, and general attitude towards their own costumers, I won't be buying their games anymore. At least, those being directly produced and developed under their brand.

It's really a catch-22 for me. I really want to see the talented people behind some of these games getting paid and retaining their jobs. But I really, really don't want to have my money being used to perpetuate EAs practices.

It's the age-old dilemma of wanting to support the artist and the art, but wanting to steer clear of the art dealers.

 

[Something Amyss]

My childhood developers, given the promise of better funding or forced majority buyouts . The demise of so many good franchises.

If they don't know better by now, they have as much right to complain about surprise as consumers do.

None. Pattern recognition kept us alive for millennium after millennium. It's a shame it's a borderline vestigial trait in modern man.

 

[Tom Waits' hat]

It's really a catch-22 for me. I really want to see the talented people behind some of these games getting paid and retaining their jobs. But I really, really don't want to have my money being used to perpetuate EAs practices.

It's the age-old dilemma of wanting to support the artist and the art, but wanting to steer clear of the art dealers.

I used to have the same concern as you. Until one day I realised, instead of worrying all the corporate horse manure. I should just be happy and do what's going to benefit me as a consumer. If I fixed the EA business culture, so what? I am not going to see a single cents out of it. At the end of the day, as long I get my products that's all it matters.

Without EA fronting them the money, they won't have a job to begin with. I guess this is why crowd funding projects are huge right now. There's also some potential risk involve, as it eliminate the middleman and the extra layer of protection. If the project collapsed or can't meet the deadline. People who backed the project are going to get burn.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I don't have many of their games, but the ones I do have they've always done well by me. I haven't publicly defended them until now but I still think they're awesome. The recent games of theirs I've played is the Mass Effect trilogy, and there was so much free DLC that I just don't understand people calling them money-grabbing. Also some of my oldest games are from them, like the Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets game that I played so long ago.

 

[Gameguy20100]

As much as I dislike their marketing (which we wont debate about now)the only games they really "fucked up" were Sim city and other shit I didn't care about as long as they make games I like and fix the marketing issue I will consider them one of the company's I like (along with Bethesda and Bio-ware...Its a Hard list to get onto OK)

 

[aguspal]

EA do some shitty things, but people treat them like monsters that can do no right and must never be forgiven.

They are monsters...... Never forget.....

My childhood developers, given the promise of better funding or forced majority buyouts . The demise of so many good franchises.

captcha : Speeding bullet..... you cruel b**tard.

-Anti Flame Shield Activated-


Lets see...Bioware, Frog whatever, somerandomname, etc...



Meh, almost none of them were worth it except Maxis and Westwood anyways. lol.

If anything, when they kill who is ACTUALLY the biggest evilest company of them all, (aka BIOWARE), I will be more than happy to hurray for EA and they will gain a fair number of points of approval from me.

 

[Don Incognito]

Still more evidence of EA/Maxis flat out lying about SimCity:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/14/modder-runs-simcity-offline-maxis-remains-silent/


Yay, DRM. Boo, complete and utter bullshitting about it.

 

[lapan]

What baffles me about EA is that we consistently validate their behaviour with our purchases, then scream that they're doing things wrong.

I haven't bought a EA game since Mass Effect 2, and even then i already only bought few of their games anymore.

 

[Dryk]

Still more evidence of EA/Maxis flat out lying about SimCity:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/14/modder-runs-simcity-offline-maxis-remains-silent/


Yay, DRM. Boo, complete and utter bullshitting about it.

Keep the nails coming Reddit, I'll grab the hammer

 

[Sean951]

I went from hating EA to apathy because I realized I had no reason to hate them. I went from apathy to actually liking them when, just yesterday, I managed to get my copies of Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 that I bought on Steam to be activated on Origin so that, once I get my free game for buying Sim City, I can have all three on the same system. It was pretty hassle free too.

 

[Something Amyss]

The irony of the whole affair is, as a community we despise the "childish" image gamers are portrayed as amongst non-gamers, yet many of us do nothing but act childishly.

And that sums up most of this debate in a nutshell. I'm not okay with what these companies do, but we empower them and then whine that they do this stuff.

I'm torn on a crash. I don't know how much good it would do.